Talk:House Targaryen

Family tree
The Family tree needed changing. I have updated it with a new diagram. I think it is correct as of "A Storm of Swords" and "The Sworn Sword". Maron Martell is not included (as the book AFFC is not yet out), I know of no source for Bittersteel's first name (Aegor). --leederick

Aenys I was the son of Aegon I and Rhaenys not of Visenya so I changed that (made some other minor changes). The information about Daenerys is somewhat unstructured, I recommend changing it. --Scafloc 11:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great. Out of curiosity: who's Maron Martell and where is he mentioned? Do I read your addition correctly in assuming that he wed a sister of King Daeron? Also, thanks for the pointer about Jaehaerys and Alysanne. If we really don't know that they are siblings then their link has to be removed. (Otherwise it's "original research" and thus not for Wikipedia.) As to Dany's section: yes, that should certainly be edited, and so should a ton of other information on these pages. I have just been busy moving things around and putting them on larger pages, thereby saving the original articles from deletion. This means that most of the original contributions are still around, but everything is in various states of chaos. Just be bold and edit. Thore 11:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, Maron Martell was the prince of Dorne married a sister of Daeron, he is mentionned in the The Soiled Knight POV from Feast of Crows. Appearently George Martin gave permissionto use the material (but not quoting from it) --Scafloc 12:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leederick's new layout
Leederick, the new tree is very nice, and the presentation contains much more information than the ASCII version ever did, so I propose to keep it. You taking some responsibility on your shoulder, because the new tree is no longer editable by everybody,.. I assume this page is on your watchlist so that you will be quick to react to proposed changes. However, you might consider uploading the source code (in whatever application you drew the tree in) to make it accessible. Three concrete comments: I hope you have a go at the genealogies of the other major houses as well! Thore 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * move the caption to raw text instead of having it as an image. It's easier to read, the font can be scaled, and he image can is easier to use in translated wikis
 * upload a larger version of the picture with a higher resolution, and display a thumbnail on this page instead.
 * check out the tree at The Hedge Knight. It contains two of Egg's sisters as well.
 * Brynden is a Brynden, not a Bryden

Thore, Leedrick (and others) I have a question about using images for the trees (not only the Targaryen but also the others). On one hand an image gives a better view, on the other hand it's less easier for others to adjust. And the principle that contributions can be adjusted by other contributers is fundamental for wikipedia. So what is acceptable, using images but uploading the source code like Thore proposed? Looking forward to reactions. --Scafloc 09:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, there is no official Wikipedia policy on this. Look at genealogy and follow the links, and you will see that there are a myriad of different styles. Moreover, the problem is temporary, and as the MediaWiki software evolves there will be some way of doing it that is neither an image nor ASCII, like SVG (see SVG image support. This means that sooner or later, there will be a format conversion anyway, so it is useless to establish a consensus.

However, ASCII is easier to edit, can be searched, and is more accessible. In some respects, it looks uglier, but in other ways it looks a lot better, so "esthetics" is a toss-up. (For example, I much prefer ASCII, because I am on a Mac which has a very good font rendering engine. Images of text that were produced on a PC look very ugly to me.) Most importantly, ASCII can be scaled, so it is far more useful on other devices -- an image probably only works on the medium the author used, for example a relatively small home computer screen, with a pixel size comparable to the author's. The latter problem can be countered to some extend by uploading a high-resolution image, and displaying a scaled-down thumbnail on the page.

So I think a priori, ASCII must be favoured. On the other hand, Leedrick's family tree uses the image to good effect -- there is a lot of information here that couldn't be conveyed equally well in ASCII. So in this case I propose to not keep the image (but with the changes I proposed above, namely to make the caption text-based). An alternative is to provide both representations. Thore 11:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments everyone. I have some responses.


 * Adjustments. I've made the adjustments people have brought to my attention (re: the caption, and modifications of the tree). I'll soon upload a new tree and an icon so it can be linked to from. I may need some help with setting this up though.


 * Editability: I see no reason why the diagram isn't editable. The diagram was drawn, mostly just so I could get my head around the tree, using no fancy software on a bitmap with easily available fonts (Times New Roman 10, and Arial 8). I don't see any barriers to others playing with it. Incidently, I also don't think the diagram will need editing frequently, new information will only come to light when GRRM releases a new story (once every couple of years).


 * Image vs. ASCII: Obviously the ideal solution is to include both - perhaps on a seperate page like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_the_Greek_gods) so they don't break up the article. Some of the current ASCII image is just factually wrong though: people who should be included on it aren't, birth orders are given which are incorrect, and no information on bastardry is given, etc. I suspect some of the reason for this is that, if the information was included, it would increase the size of the tree to a level which was unwieldy.

Leederick 15:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Back to ASCII?
I have finally understood how we can have hyperlinks and mark-up in the tree. Look here (assuming your typeface, skin, os, etc. supports it, Aerys II should be bold because he was king, Daeron's bastards' nicknames should be in italics, and Dany should have a link). I think this tips the balance very much in favour of an ASCII presentation, since the links make the tree much more useful than an image could ever be. It's a bitch to edit because things don't line up anymore, but still much easier than changing the image.

I suggest we go back to an ASCII version for reasons of accessibility and navigation, and keep a thumbnailed high-resultion image of leedrick's beautifully laid-out tree for people to drool over. I will try to modify the small tree at The Hedge Knight just to see if this is manageable at all...

Comments? Thore 10:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Separate plots?
One of the things that bothers me most with SoIaF-related material on Wikipedia are plot summaries. There are two reasons for that. First, I don't even think they belong here. (See my exposition on Talk:List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire.) Second, I don't want to spoil the plot.

I understand that the first position is an uphill battle, and I won't fight it. But the second point is valid enough, I suppose. I would like the wikispace of Song-related material to be in two parts. One are basic background facts, like the Westeros page or the War of the Usurper section. These relate events that are prior to the setting of A Game of Thrones. These have general appeal, and a number of intended audiences (fantasy fans in general, but also readers that want all the scattered information about a particular war in one place). The other part are plot summaries. I don't like them, but I assume they are here to stay. Indeed, the many wonderful Dune articles show that nice plot summaries can be done, character by character.

However, I maintain that separating the two issues is a good idea. And lo! I found the Harry Potter (plot) article. Now that's a good idea. And I think it would work for Song as well. We can have entire plot articles (like "Game of Thrones (plot)", but also "Eddard Stark (plot)"), and can otherwise factor out the plot-related information on other pages in separate sections. In some sense, this is what the spoiler template does, but it is more general, and has scope. (The spoiler template just says that everything below this line are spoilers.)

That is not to say that there can be no spoilers outside the plot sections. But the plot sections should relate the "surface plot" of Song from AL 298 onwards. This does not include information that is related in flashbacks, which goes into a normal page. For example, the fact that Robert killed Rhaegar on the trident is not plot. Moreover, under this definition, the reason for Jaime killing Aerys would not be a plot issue. It goes on the Aerys Targaryen page, and is (in principle) ancient history. I realise that it is a spoiler, but we need to draw the line somewhere. Plot is a better concept for this than spoiler. These things will become more and more problematic. The Jon Snow page is already extremely spoilerific, to the point that I would hestitate recommending it to somebody who is reading the books. And that is a sad fact -- the Wikipedia articles for Song should be useful for such readers, not dangerous.

I will try to edit some of the material with this in mind. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Reverting shouldn't be a problem. Thore 09:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revisions
I've been revising and updating all the House articles on Wikipedia over the past couple weeks. I've created a reasonably standard format for the others, but I'm not sure it should apply to the Targaryen page, as they're of more historical interest than others, as evidenced by the relative wealth of material in this article. I'm inclined to rearrange and lightly revise rather than edit those bits, but the sections on characters include some rather minor figures and are occasionally poorly written, so I'd be inclined to delete or rework those. Thoughts? Brendan 01:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Brendan, I just added Bloodraven when I saw that you had removed some of the other historical Targaryens. (I hadn't see your above comments, sorry for not responding earlier.) I would rather like to keep those around. You are quite right in observing that the Targaryen page will have a slightly different, more "historical", feel than the other "current" House pages. (In fact, that's why I like it better...) Arbor 09:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add them back, then. I think I deleted the two or three I did because there was nothing much there beyond a description of their arms, but that could be remedied easily enough. The section on Bloodraven is very nice. Brendan 18:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * New here. Love what you guys are doing, as I have been an ASOIAF fanatic since 1997.  With respect to the family trees on the House pages, how are you handling potential spoilers there.  For example, I was thinking about adding Rhaelle Targaryen (Egg's daughter) but didn't know how far to go with it (i.e., adding her marriage into House Baratheon and subsequent known Baratheon offspring).  Any suggestions would be helpful.  OBA 11:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome. There is no Wikipedia policy for spoiler warnings. Many editors (including me) think they are silly and don't belong to an encyclopedia. However, there is a broad consensus to user the spoiler warning template for running text (which you can see currently in the Aegon entry). For the trees, that obviously is no solution. From my perspective, Rhaelle is not critical and can be easily added (I added her to the House Baratheon page some time ago). Arbor 14:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think most people have avoided putting spoilers about the main narrative (things like Ned dying) in the family trees as they aren't spoiler-tagged, but I think comparatively minor genealogical information about the past isn't a problem. I'd say add as much as we know. Brendan 17:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merged Aerys
After the removal of the information on the War of the Usurper to Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire, Aerys Targaryen didn't really have enough content to warrant a separate page, so I merged him in here. The material on his Hands and his Kingsguard is on a subpage of mine until it can be rearranged for an (as-yet-hypothetical) Kingsguard (A Song of Ice and Fire) or Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire page. Brendan 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetize or chronologize?
This page is coming along nicely. About the list of notable Targs, would it make more sense to order them by birthday? In that way, one could read them chronologically. Or split out the kings (Have a section called Targaryen Kings and another called Other Notable Targaryens, maybe one with Rebels for the Blackfyres.). Arbor 20:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think chronological order would give the page a better flow than jumping around history to do them alphabetically. Someone reading the whole section (as opposed to just looking up particular individuals) would probably get more out of a historical listing.  Splitting out the kings I'm not sure on; I'll think about it for a bit. Brendan Moody 21:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Daemon's History
There was a question about Daemon's history as described in the article. The source for some of the information is an email written by Martin to the artist Amok, who posted it on his messageboard here: http://www.amoka.net/eng/forum/viewtopic.php?p=55218&sid=e5e5950a5dd7faadc66ef70d1d808bc5

I can't get to that link myself, but is there mention in there of Bloodraven being a knight? Currently Daemon's section includes this line: "killed along with his twin sons, Aemon and Aegon, by Ser Brynden Rivers and the Raven's Teeth" I don't know of anything stating that Bloodraven, aka Brynden Rivers, was a knight, so he shouldn't have the title Ser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.7.16 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rhaena and Elaena
GRRM has provided additional information about the two other princesses in the Tower, but they seem relatively minor characaters, and don't warrant their own sections. Or do they? Daena should only get a section, I think, because of her importance as the mother of Daemon Blackfyre. Saralleine 8/14/06 @ 14:27
 * Unless something in a future book makes them more important or relevant, I don't think they need their own section. -Captain Crawdad 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Aegon V
Under the summerhall incident "Dunk and Aegon's son Duncan the Tall" are mentioned. Is this saying that Duncan was Aegon's son, am I readding it wrong or is that a typo? NeoFreak 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It says "Dunk and Aegon's son Ser Duncan the Small". Duncan the SMALL was Aegon's son, also called the Prince of Dragonflies. The "ser" should actually be "prince", so I'll change it and maybe it will be less confusing. -Captain Crawdad 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

AH, haha, ok. Sorry but it's been a long week and it's only Wednesday. NeoFreak 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhaenyra
Wasn't she the lover of Ser Criston Cole, the Kingsguard who betrayed her?

I haven't re-read AFFC, but I'm pretty sure they were not. Is there another source for this?--Werthead 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it say someething to that effect in the Arys section in the prologue? When Arianne was trying to tempt him? QueenSteffona 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Succession section
As you can see, I have started a section called Succession. Going through the bios it is clear that a number of events are described over and over, notably the relationship between individuals leading up to the Blackfyre rebellion. It is my feeling that these events are better presented in an organic fashion instead of being spread over many biographical sketches. Topical genealogical trees hopefully make the relationship more transparent. I think this is much more accessible and entertaining. What is missing is the Dance of Dragons, the details of which I am not too confident about, and which is also important because it settles the laws of Targaryen succession.

However. One could rename the section to Major events, and thus cover a few more events, notably the invasion. Much of it would be covered at the main article (currently Wars in ...), so a one-paragraph summary of Aegon's invasion would suffice, similarly for the War of the Usurper (even though the current article could have a broader perspective on the Targaryen Götterdämmerung by also describing the Defiance of Duskendale).

Are there other major events in Targaryen history that we would want to cover and know enough about, and which deserve a separate section rather than a few words under a biographical entry? Arbor 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a "Major Events" section, with brief descriptions and links to the main articles, like you describe. The invasion and the Usurper's Rebellion are the only other major events that come to mind. -Captain Crawdad 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maidens in the Tower & The Great Bastards
Should seperate pages be prepared for these groupings of Targaryens, rather than include them in teh (now) rather long list of Targs? - they can still have their names appear in the list, but with links to a seperate page 1) one with Daena, Rhaena and Elaena, and 2) with Blackfyre, Bittersteel, Bloodraven and Shiera Seastar? QueenSteffona 17:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Organizing the Historical Targaryens
It seems to me that the character list of historical Targ's is just too long and choppy. I don't think we really need a separate subheading for every Targ that's been mentioned to any signigicant degree. Here's some suggestions: How about we take a page from the House Frey article and push less relevant Targ's down to a bullet-point section, where a sentence or two on who they were suffices for each. A second suggestion: how about grouping some characters together when they are heavily associated with each other, such as an article for all the Great Bastards or lumping Aegon and his two sisters together, or sticking Alysanne in with Jaehearys I? Rather than putting the Maidens in the Tower on a separate page, we could give them their own collective subheading, sticking Daena the Defiant in there as well. It seems this would organize the section into subjects rather than just a long list of names. Any thoughts? -Captain Crawdad 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no good suggestion. I agree with everything you say, but… (1) The reason to have separate subheadings is for reference (since Wikimedia software can make links only to headings, not to body text). This can be solved, of course, by using piped links. (2) Any classification (Maidens in the Tower, Great Bastards, Spontaneously combusted Targaryens , etc.) will be arbitrary. A list by name is not. (3) Wikipedia is not paper. There is nothing wrong with a List of Targaryens. In fact, I think that part of the article is a great reference. (4) That being said, our ambition should be to keep the notable, interesting stuff in topical sections with meaty prose. The List of Targaryens should be short and dry. Whatever is biographically interesting should appear in a different section. Arbor 07:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We might want to explore the possibility of making the list of Historical Targaryens a seperate page and focusing the House page on more "recent" events and influnces as well as a brief historical summary. NeoFreak 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, WP has lots of List of XYZ articles. But why have two separate pages? The list of names with short bios is a useful section of the main Targaryen article. All we need to remember is that we should focus on putting notable information into meaty prose instead of lists. But lists do have value. Arbor 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just think that alot of that section is "taking up sapce" for alot of readers. By cutting it out it eliminates confusion in the main artilce and adds a direct go to for people that are looking for a specific thing. Just a passing thought though, nothing I'm really set on. NeoFreak 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

im a total newb
I added the serial comma to history, traits and cusoms---> history, traits, and customs. Its a small edit, but one that is predicated on my grammar studies. I plan on getting bolder in my edits as I learn more about wikipedia.
 * The edit was a good one, thanks! Here's something you should know: put four tildes (~) at the end of your comments when you edit on discussion pages. That will "sign" your comments like this ---> Captain Crawdad 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome, and thanks for editing. Actually, Wikipedia has no clear consensus on whether the serial comma is necessary (see the relevant section of our manual of style), so both inserting it (as you did) and removing it (as Pejorative.majeure has now done) are acceptable. Brendan Moody 04:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. I normally use the NY Times... I usually forget there are other ways of doing things. Of course, I personally use -'our' instead of -'or' but have to remember differently for work. Pejorative.majeure 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rhaelle Targaryen
I notice that the (very nice looking) family tree image does not include Rhaelle Targaryen. I think she should be listed on the family tree for two reasons: 1) Being Robert's grandmother, she gave him fairly good claim to the throne once the surviving Targaryen's had fled, and 2) Without her name present, it is easy to confuse Rhaelle (Aerys's aunt, Robert's grandmother) with Rhaella (Aerys's sister and wife, Rhaegar's mother). Kutulu 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I included her in the file --Scafloc 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aegon II's Daughter
Sorry guys - I have no idea where I got the name Alaenys from. I thought it was in the SSM, but.. I guess not.

Saralleine (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries! (BTW, are you the Saralleine from Tales of Ta'veren MUSH? The reason I even became aware of this was that someone on my MUSH had been using Wikipedia as a reference and mentioned Alaenys :)

--Elio Garcia (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

unmerge
So, it seems somebody reverted my merge (or at least restored this page). That puts us at the discuss part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As your edit summary is rather cryptic, I am curious why you would have a problem with this page being merged into Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire. What makes it notable enough to have it's own page? I think most of this page is excessive information unsuited for wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)