Hi, welcome to Game of Thrones Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Battle of the Whispering Wood page.
We welcome all contributions to the Wiki but please be aware of the following simple rules:
1) This wiki is meant for the Game of Thrones TV series and the TV alone. Spoilers from the novels are not permitted at all. Discussion of earlier events in the novels and the use of non-spoiler background material from the novel as regards specific events, characters and places in the TV series are allowed (in the 'In the books' section of an article) but future events cannot be discussed.
2) This wiki has specific permission from HBO's marketing department to use a reasonable number of promotional images and screencaps from the series to illustrate articles. The use of other copyrighted images is not permitted without either specific permission or fair use attributions. For example, this Wiki cannot use Amoka's portrait images or Ted Nasmith's castle pictures as these are copyrighted. In addition, the Wiki is focused on the TV series and TV series alone. Images from other media should be avoided without a very good cause.
Battle of the Blackwater
Hi John Valasopoulos,
Your edit to the article "Battle of the Blackwater" about the Lannister men-at-arms is correct.
However, I deleted your edit about the hill tribesmen because there is no evidence that Tyrion brought 3,000 of them to the city. DvranPing200 and I discussed this detail thoroughly (see the "Numbers and Casualties" discussion thread in the "Talk" section of the article). If you disagree with the conclusions, you are welcome to post your arguments in the aforementioned thread.
Moreover, there was no need to add references and the footnote about the calculation to the infobox, because there is a section in the article specifically about the numbers, which includes the references and the calculations. Moonracer (talk) 13:59, October 8, 2020 (UTC)
References and punctuation
In your recent edits there are two repeating flaws:
1) You add numbers, without the references which can verify them. For instance, the edit to the article "House Baratheon": where did you get the number 35,000? The other users cannot check the correctness of your edits without the references.
2) You post lengthy sentences without commas. For instance, the sentence you added to "Liberation of Harrenhal" article: "Robb leads 6,000 men to Riverrun to pay respects and also cotinue [sic] the campaign in the Westerlands while the rest of his demoralized army is left with Roose Bolton in charge of Harrenhal to hold the castle". How can anyone understand such a lengthy sentence? There should be commas to separate the parts of the sentence. The same with the sentence "This means that if the Karstarks are 3,000 then Robb led to Riverrun 6,000 men".
The two aforementioned flaws are also in your edits to the article "Capture of Riverrun":
- In which episode did Walder Frey mention that he had ten times larger army at the Twins than the Tullys?
- Where did you get the number 3,600?
- In the footnote, you should have added a comma after "3,600".
Another flaw is in the paragraph you added to the "Red Wedding" article: since the whole section is in present tense, the paragraph you added should have also been in present tense, not past. It also contains various grammar and spelling errors: "Northener", "one his daughters", "Robb agreed with this terms the wedding would happenn at the Twins" (a totally incorrect sentence).
You are requested to go over all the edits you have made since October 8th - not only the ones I specifically mentioned above - starting from "House Baratheon", to add references and punctuation marks wherever it is necessary, to fix the tenses and the other errors.
@Moonracer I apologise for my spelling errors, my keyboard is badly damaged and I can't type well. I also apologise for not adding the name of the episodes on each reference. Also, about the Baratheon military strength, the strength is been mentioned in one of the "History and Lore" episode, but I can't remember the name of it. The same number for the Baratheon troops is in the article for the Battle of the Trident. Furthermore, I'm looking for the name of the episode that Walder Frey mention that he had ten times more men than the Tullys. I remember that he had mention it on the episode that he learns about the capture of Riverrun by his sons. As for the number "3,600", is been mentioned in season 1, episode 9, by Theon Greyjoy, were he proposes Robb to attack the Twins as long as he had 5 times larger army. Robb had 18,000 men, which means 18,000:5=3,600. Still, I apologize that I didn't add the reference.John Valasopoulos (talk) 13:32, October 10, 2020 (UTC)
Glad to see someone interested in westerosi military forces. Sadly, keeping track of military forces in the show is a total mess of contradictions and madness.
S6E6, Walder mentions that he had ten times more men than the Tullys. Robb came with 20,000 men from the North, he mentions 18,000 because thats a quote from the books before the Manderlys arrived, but in the show we know he has 20,000 of more because in later seasons thats the number they keep telling us, despise all the battles he has fought. He has 5 times the Freys so thats 4,000 for them, they hold 400 of those to guard the Twins so your edits about his forces from Whispering Wood to Harrenhall are wrong.
Despise being the symbol of the Rebellion, most of Robert forces were from the North and the Vale, with the Riverlands and Stormlands being split between loyalist and rebels, Stormlands warriors were the minority of the rebels in fact: in Summerhall he fought his own bannermen three times, 500 were leaved at Storm's End under Stannis and Ashford leave him with so few men that he was unable to engage Connington until Ned arrived. However, you can say that the 35,000 rebles of the Trident were fighting for Robert, but that was 17 years before the events in show, after the split between Stannis, Renly and Joffrey and the bloodsheds of Blackwater, Tyrell-Lannister invasion and Winterfell, the manpower of the Stormlands would be equal to the North or the Riverlands. DvranPing200 (talk) 16:22, October 10, 2020 (UTC)
@DvranPing200 I agree with you except from one thing; the soldiers of Robb Stark were 18,000, not 20. He told 20,000 or more to the Lannister scout to frighten Tywin. Before he was reinforced by the Freys Theon stated that they had 5 times more men, which means Walder had 3,600. When he was reinforced by 3,200 Frey soldiers (400 remained at the Twins), he had 21,200 men. 2,000 of them died at the battle of the Green Fork. That's how Robb deceived the Lannisters; he told to the Lannister scout to tell Tywin that 20,000 men were coming upon him, while himself marched against Jaime, sending only 2,000 men upon Tywin. After the battle he was reinforced by the Tullys. At this moment he may had more than 19,200 men that he used at the Whispering Wood. Maybe this is the reason we keep hear more than 20,000 men at the series. About the Liberation of Harrenhal I might be mistaken at the numbers, I'm not sure. Also about the arrival of the Manderlys, that happened in the books, we do not see such thing in the series and I believe that we should not take information from the books. And I remember that Catelyn told Frey that Robb had 20,000 soldiers, but this act is very common not only in the series but also in military history; telling your opponent that you have more men than you realy do to avoid the conlfict or deceive the opponent, just like Robb did to Tywin.John Valasopoulos (talk) 16:54, October 10, 2020 (UTC)
- I have given you enough time to go over your edits and fix them according to my instructions.
- You fixed well some of the edits, but not all. The edits you did not fix, which were without explanations or references (or both) - I deleted.
- I repeat: you cannot just add or fix numbers. You have to explain from where you got those numbers and to add the referenes, so the other users can check the correctness of your edits. Moonracer (talk) 12:43, October 17, 2020 (UTC)
Edit wars, namely re-posting an edit after it has been reverted/deleted (exactly as it was or slightly different), are forbidden. Since perhaps you were not aware of that, you will not be sanctioned - this time only.
In the future, in case another user deletes your edit, you should contact an administrator about the matter.
If an administrator deletes your edit - then you may do any of the following:
- Contact that administrator and explain why you think your edit is correct.
- In case the administrator opened a thread in your Talk page, you may write your response in that thread.
- You may also open a thread in the "Talk" section of the article in question and write your explanation.
Even if you think you are correct, you are not allowed to conduct an edit war.
I have given you enough time to fix the flaws in your recent edits, and you fixed only some. Only after I reverted the rest of your edits - then you suddenly remembered to fix them, as if you were doing me a favor, but partly and very negligently: not only you repeated the flaws I already commented about (lack of references and punctuation), you also made plenty of new ones. This is unacceptable.
The membership in this wikipedia is voluntary, which means that you do not have to make any edits. But once you do, you must do them correctly and properly. No high standards are required from the users, but there has to be an average level, which your edits are below of.
If there were only slight errors in your edits ("consinsting"), I'd fix them myself. But when you make such a mess - not only in one, but in five articles - you must fix it, and cannot expect others to do it for you, or wait till your edits are deleted and then re-post them.
To make it clear: by instructing you to fix your edits, I did not ask for any personal favors from you. If you wish to add information to articles, about numbers of troops or otherwise - that's fine, but you should phrase it properly and make it clear and available to the readers.
Whoever reads the articles you edited does not have to wonder "where did the number 18,000 come from?". Just because you added the reference ("The Pointy End") to some articles, does not mean you can omit it from other articles. The readers are not supposed to go over your other edits and look for that information.
Among the repeating flaws in your recent edits, in addition to lack of references, are:
- The articles are not conversational. Therefore, you should not write "we learn...". You may write "according to episode X...".
- Spelling errors ("consinsting").
- Lengthy sentences without commas.
- Grammatical errors:
- Using verbs in a progressive form rather than simple form, for no reason ("the Karstarks are consisting", "they were outnumbering").
- Use past perfect tense for no reason ("Theon Greyjoy had told").
- Using past and present tenses alternatively in the same passage.
- Phrasing sentences as conditional, for no reason ("If the Northmen were at this point 18,000").
- Placing too much information in footnotes. Footnotes are for short comments and clarifications, not for whole paragraphs. In such case, you should open a new section in the article, and move there the information (not simply copy-paste, but rephrase and arrange it properly).
- The "Forces" line of the infobox of "Capture of Riverrun" is for numbers, not generally "Frey Garrison". If you do not know the number, you should have left it "unknown".
- Whatever for did you add different versions of the explanation about the 18,000 and 3,600 men? Wouldn't it be simpler to use the same explanation at each article?
I am not specifying here each and every flaw you made in the five articles - you should go over your edits, find all the errors and fix them.
The choice is yours:
- If you fix all the edits properly - they will remain.
- If you do not fix them, wholly or partly, or fix them negligently - they will be deleted, and you will not be given a chance to fix them or be allowed to re-post them (this will be an edit war, which now you what it means).
There are items which are not errors, but it is preferable to fix them:
- There is no need to repeat the same explanation (or part of it) in separate footnotes. In "Second Siege of Riverrun", the second footnote repeats half of the first footnote. It was enough to write "See the former footnote".
- If you notice an incorrect sentence ("The Stark Army was composed of 18,000 men between infantry and cavalary"), then you should fix it wholly, not correct just one word or one number. There are at least three errors in the sentence: the capital A, the tense is inconsistent with the rest of the passage, "consists of" is better than "is composed of".
@Moonracer I apologize again for my mistakes. The past few days I was working and I didn't have the time to fix all my edits. Explain me though, where else did you found lengthy sentences without commas? I remember that I fixed these sentences just when you warned me about my first edits. Also where did you found a different explanation about the numbers 18,000 and 3,600? I 'll try to fix the rest of my flaws, but, as I texted you before, my keyboard has some damages and I can't type very well, so, do not expect a high level grammar and spelling from me. For instance, it took me more than 30 minutes to type this post correctly.John Valasopoulos (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)