Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire Universe

This article was nominated for deletion on February 3 2006. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect to A Song of Ice and Fire.

untitled

This is some fascinating speculation, but has it been published in a reputable source elsewhere? If not, it violates WP:NOR and/or WP:RS. Brendan 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, may be I've got over excited. The consept I want to pursue is to dig out physics data from "So spoke Martin" section of the Westeros.org as well as providing parallels to the "real world" (an issue of aurochs come to mind - most people think it's an invented animal, as well as direwolf). As the only reference in existence is GRRM opinion, it will fit the policy.

Merge with Westeros

Whatever material is salvageable would make a welcome section on Westeros. (Just like there is information about "Tolkienplanet" on Middle-earth, even though Middle-earth is just one continent of a larger creation.) I don't see a full article here, ever. Arbor 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. After reading the article, it appears to be virtually entirely original research. While one or two minor things could possibly be merged from this article, it would be far easier to just expand the Westeros article independently rather than try to parse the good from the bad here. I have therefore removed the merge tag and nominated the article for deletion. Indrian 08:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only started to work on the topic two hours ago and you are already considering in for deleteion? I'm going to write a serious article here and will appreciate if you give me a day or two to complete it. I promise not to make any unchecked claims (the ones present in first revision are only juicy place fillers). I think every GRRM fan will benefit from such an article. Oakad
Don't worry, Oakad. We all have had articles voted for deletion. But I encourage you to start expanding and improving Westeros first. If and when that article overflows we can consider breaking it up. You need, however, to understand that Wikipedia is not the place of your own specualtion, however well informed it might be. We would have to remove this article even if George Martin himself wrote it, because Wikipedia is not a primary source. (Such an article would be very interesting to GRRM fans. But still not belong to Wikipedia.) Indrian, we seem to be in agreement, not disagreement ("whatever is salvageable"). But suggesting a merge is administratively much easier, quicker, and less antagonistic. No need to fire up the whole AfD proces. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the current article. It's not called Physics of the A Song and Fire Universe, which would be AfD material. Arbor 10:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version - total overhaul.
I would like to disagree with the proposed merge. Westeros article should be written from the human perspective - it must reflect the knowledge present in the story. "Universe" article can cover the issue from the height of the raven's flight. Of course in the present time it is short and white-spotted, but I feel it will be greatly expanded with the arrival of the last book.

Why? Middle-earth certainly contains information that is not available to your random Hobbit. I would much prefer a single, decent, encyclopaedic article; Middle-earth should be our ideal. Arbor 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the same. The Professor is long dead and even Silmarillion was published after his death. Every single piece of info we have on Middle-earth is insider's "epic" view (it's like learning about Finland from Kalevala - yet nobody suggests merging these articles). We don't even know who issued the coins hobbits were using to pay for their beer and leaf (Angmar? Gondor? maybe Saruman?). In our case, we can check all the missing details with the Creator (we only have to wait a little for the last book). Then a two article structure will be very handy, I think.

(Remember to sign your contributions with four tildes.) I don't understand. The reason your article is up for deletion is because it is based to a large extent on speculation. Intelligent speculation, make no mistake, but that's completely irrelevant. Even George Martin himself would not be allowed to write such a thing on Wikipedia. Stephen Hawkins would be allowed to add original physics content. It violates one of the cornerstones of this website. So for speculation there is no place. For description of the cosmology, fauna, flora, geography, history, etc., Westeros is the better place (because it's what people would link to or search for, and because we have the most information for that continent—we don't even know if Bravos experienced the Long Winter, for crying out loud!). Westeros needs a Rest of the world section to deal with Myr and Lys and Asshai, and when (or if) that section ever overflows, it will get its own article, possibly called World of A Song of Ice and Fire. The part of your contribution that I find potentially brilliant and highly salvageable is the comparison to previous work of the author. That's very much Wikipedia material. Arbor 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your example with Martin and Hawking is not that successful. Martin is a final and absolute authority in his world. Hawking may only speculate (poorly - not because he is not good scientist, but because experimental physics is in deep stagnation for some 40 years now). You want to know whether there was a Long Winter in Braavos - wait for the next book (GRRM promised - user mail #245).

That's irrelevant. My example seems to be just right to explain this to you: Truth is not the criterion for inclusion in WP. WP just cannot be a primary source. That's why Martin couldn't write this article. You still seem to think the quality of the reasoning is important. It isn't. It is whether said reasoning has appeared somewhere else before. Arbor 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't believe the current version of the article to be excessively speculative (it reflects our current knowledge of the world, backed up by GRRM hints and awaiting a final stroke of the pen). The setting of the story is especially realistic and well thought out. All that we might learn from the books is narrated from somebodies POV. There is also insider discussion (see Maester Denestan votum separatum in the FoC - would you believe him or Archmaester Haereg?) on the validity of Westeros history as inhabitants know it. In short: there is a big distinction in this case between author's vision of the world (absolute truth) and POV-related truth available from the story. Thus the need for two articles.oakad 14:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Arbor - I'm sorry to interrupt with your editing activities, but the article has turned into complete kludge. Rather than seeing it this way, I prefer to have it deleted. You may use whatever information you like on any other page. After all it was my pleasure reading all these books.

I'm washing my hands for now.oakad 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Oakad. I am trying to help your article by deleting the passages that are obviously violating several WP rules. It is currently on AfD, and many editors will be looking at it, hunting for precisely such things. I removed them, in order to give your article a better chance of survival. Remember that at the very bottom of the edit page it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." No reason to act conceited. Remember that mine is the only voice so far against deletion—would like to retain your work, and keep you around. Arbor 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont't have anything against other people editing the article, as long as they know what they are saying. For example, take your comment: "Rm laws of physics. Arrows that fly 800 feet up? Trees that grow in permafrost? Dragons that breathe fire? Shadowbabies?". Well, dragons and shadow babies are magical elements of unknown origin, but author said so more than once.

However arrows do fly 800 feet up. Typical arrow weights 20 to 60 gramms (this is not that important) and have an initial velocity of 200 to 300 ft/sec. This gives an arrow climb to be between 610ft (186m) and 1360ft (414m) (the formula h = v^2/2/g). As you can see, plenty of room for shooting.
Trees in the far north. As you may know, the coldest place in the northern hemisphere is Oymyakon. It is so cold there that you can not piss without risking your urine to freeze in the channel. Yet the place has a large forest massive and sustains native population (despite permafrost).
And really, why did you removed my explanation on the non-demonic nature of Others? GRRM never said anything of them being demonic, some wikipedia editor did.

As you can guess, my intention with this article was exactly to "separate grain from chaff" - so reader could know what can be real and what is fantasy.oakad 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now we're editing. If you disagree with one of my edits then revert it and put an explanation in the Edit summary. That's the way the other 900000 pages work. Welcome to Wikipedia. (For example, I love your description of Westerosi fauna that is linked to extinct Earth species. I had no idea about trees growing in permafrost on Earth eiter. Revert me, put the Earth example in: presto! The page is improved.) But... there is no way you can claim that physics in Martinworld behaves just as on Earth, unless the man confirms it. We already now for a fact that Martinworld's genetics is faked, and we know that magic works. That makes any claims to the applicability of Science questionable, especially it makes the statement that Physics Just Works something that needs Martin's blessing. As soon has he does, you can put in back and source it. Until then, the claim is your POV. (It is my POV as well. But that's irrelevant. We aren't here to arbitrate whether or not a POV is reasonable. You and I could agree on all points (actually, I agree with most of your conclusions) and still couldn't write it.) Same goes for Others. You claim they are non-demonic, but foreign to the environment. I happen to agree, but you and I cannot write that in anyway. And the very fact that somebody else disagrees should prove to you that it's an opinion. What you could write is "Some people think that the Others are demonic, but others disagree," then source that claim with pointers to web fora. But that will be at the lower level of "notability" other Wikipedia editors would accept, and is sure to get the page deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to arbitrate debates in the fandom of a fictional universe. The rest of the article will be fine. (Though it very much looks like it will be deleted. I try to fight that removing the passages that I deem most offensive to other WP editors. Help me.) Hang in there, Oakad.Arbor 14:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem with that article is timing (e.g. I should have been waited for the last book, but it can take many years). I also think that voting consensus was formed by initial, unsuccessful wording of the article and in large by my wishful thinking (that is I formed a strong belief based on undisclosed information). On the other hand, you can not simply merge the article with Westeros - westeros is a specific name of western continent (and there are eastern and southern continents in that world that are not, stricly speaking, Westeros).

Application of the word "technology". I think its reasonable to say that valyrian technology is more advanced, as there are artifacts of valyrian origin that can not be manufactured by westeros craftsmen (application of magic in production of valyrian steel is 100% analogous to application of chrome plating or any similar technological process).
Valyrian doom - braavosi priest said that there were 14 volcanous in valyria and Euron says that doom still rules valyria - "the very sea there boiled and smoked". To your opinion, does it means that Valyria necessarily died in massive volcanic eruption (the story is written in medieval terms after all)?
Environmental needs of the Others. Every single book Samwell found at the Night Watch tells that Others only come when its dark and cold. Nobody is sure if they are causing the darkness and cold or wait for them (later is more probable, as nobody has ever seen them in summer), but the fact remains nevertheless. oakad 06:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oakad, you're making good arguments for various positions, but the fact that they can be debated indicates that they're not suitable for inclusion here. Even very logical, widely-agreed-upon supposition doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. The article you initially wrote would be a great addition to a fansite- you might want to contact Westeros [1] or Tower of the Hand [2] to see if they'd like to use it. In Wikipedia, though, every statement must have a concrete source within the books or from the author. Drawing inferences from the characters' statements, even seemingly obvious ones, constitutes original research. "I think it's reasonable" and "To your opinion" are markers of this approach. I've edited the article to remove material that isn't sourced or is repetitive of content already found in Westeros. I realize that Westeros is only the name of one continent, and not of the entire planet, but without a name for the whole planet an article about it would have to a title like The Planet from A Song of Ice and Fire or (hey) A Song of Ice and Fire Universe. And while someone might conceivably use those names when looking for information, Westeros would be a lot more common, which is why this page should become a redirect to it. Westeros already includes information about the eastern continent. It's a minor inaccuracy, but there's no easy way around it. Brendan 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan: " In Wikipedia, though, every statement must have a concrete source within the books or from the author. " Well, it would be all-right to source somebody else as well. You could say "Valyria is surrounded by smoking volcanoes. This led Robert Silverberg, in the preface to The Hedge Knight to speculate that the ancient kingdom was destroyed in a volcanic eruption." Thus you would attribute the conclusion (obvious, as you and I may think) to somebody else, in this (fictitious) case to RS. You can replace RS by others (the authors of the role-playing expansion, some edition of Asimov's, etc), but you cannot replace it by "me" or "most people who have thought about it" or "many fans". Not because the information is bad, or false, or un-interesting. But because of Wkipedia rules. Arbor 06:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]