User talk:Benethon Stark
i noticed you deleted the template "Consorts of Westeros" with no explanation offered. Could you point out why? --Dimadick 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I must've mislaid the explanation. It is an irrelevant template. The necessary articles offer up details such as consorts, pets, ships, personal weapons, etc. We needn't a template for every minute detail. -- Benethon Stark 16:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- How is it irrelevant? These are major characters and I don't see any "necessary article" covering them. --Dimadick 17:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't need a template for every person a royal has fucked. The necessary articles are the ones for the characters themselves. Can you explain why we need a royal consort template at all? -- Benethon Stark 17:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- First, this isn't a list of list of sexual history. This is a list of wives and royal mistresses who actually had a position at court or a child acknowledged by a monarch. With as many discussions of Targaryens and/or royalty in the forums, I was surprised at the lack of a relevant article. Second, navigation templates are supposed to help people locate the relevant articles. They do not replace the individual pages.
And I can easily explain that we need a way to easily locate and navigate between the relevant articles. Or else we would not have templates such as 'Houses North" or 'Houses Dorne".
Third, note how the relevant list in "A Song of Ice and fire wiki" helps readers locate kings and consorts in a single page: http://iceandfire.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Westeros
I hardly thinks this a matter of trivia. --Dimadick 17:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- The list isn't important enough to be separate from the characters themselves. I scarcely think consorts are as researched here as Houses or Kings. Just create a Category and tag them consorts in it. A template is unnecessary. --Benethon Stark 18:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- If I may interfere, I would like to add my thoughts to the discussion. First of all it is against our customs to delete a page without discussion. The only cases where this does not matter are typos in name of uploads gone wrong and deleted by the same person. This is an important thing to stress. As the wiki is made by all of us is not strange that differences of opionion occur. These are best handled by discussion. Therefore if you think an article, list or template is irrelevant, suggest this on the talk page and wait for possible reaction before doeting it. Of course you can also start a forum discussion about it. This may help to force a decision.
- On the subject of the template: there are two things to consider:
- Is the the information relevant? We can be short on that. If each person that is mentioned in the books is relevant enough for a separate page (this is our current policy) then who the consort of a king or queen is, is certainly relevant.
- Is the form in which this information is put the best one? For this we have to think how the readers would like to navigate through the wiki. For our POV characters it is clear that readers when reading the article about a POV will like to switch to another POV. For kings it is easy to imagine that readers would like to navigate through them. Especially between the kings that fought the War of the Five Kings. For their consorts if the are not rulers is their own right it is less clear. Would a reader want to navigate, say from Jeyne Westerling to Alannys Harlaw? I do not think so. However it does not bother my very much provided that we do not go from consorts to mistresses, children and so on. Also there is the precedent that on Wikipedia booth lists and template are used. See w:Template:British consort and w:List_of_British_consorts. So I am ok with it. However if more opinions are needed By all means start a discussion on the forum. Scafloc 22:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good points, I hope you'll forgive my breach of guest right- err, customs.
The consort template as it stood leaned more to your latter example of what we want to steer clear of, mistresses and the like. Perhaps if Wiki does something, we should imitate. But it strikes me more as an item more minor to the information researched and so should be a Category. I mean it simply lists every known person a king laid with, not just actual Royal Consorts. --Benethon Stark 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Aegon Targaryen edits
- Will do. I'd characterize it more as vandalism on Roxy's part since that individual insists on only editing ONE part of the controversy and ignores the rest (ex. aliases). Benethon Stark 21:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)