...I wasn't here in Season 1. Why is this character assumed to be Walder Rivers...and not Ryger Rivers, who actually had the dialogue this character uses in Season 1's "Baelor"?
It has a conjecture tag.
I am starting to suspect that the TV continuity condensed Walder's grandson Black Walder Frey and his bastard son Walder Rivers into one composite character, "Black Walder Rivers", a bastard son of Lord Walder.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:28, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Presumably because Ryger Rivers is a teenager in the books. It's Ryger, not Walder who reminds his father of his courtesies (or tries to). It's pure speculation to say that this Frey bastard is Walder Rivers based on his age. The page should be moved to Ryger Rivers to allow the Black Walder page to be moved to Walder Rivers.-- 06:25, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Probably futile on my part, but if you want to simplify it, why not just do what for Tim Plester and Bryan McCaugherty what this wiki did for John Stahl and Steven Blount (it isn't 100% the same situation, but it's pretty similar)? Treat it like one character (in terms of just one article) and just use the same language that's on Steven Blount's article mentioning that his role may have been recast or he may be playing since a separate Northern lord since he was never named on on-screen.
- No need to be more definite. No matter what, it's speculation and different from the books, but just putting into one article is the simplest and also how more people will read it under Walder Rivers (Black Walder) and less repetitive with the information on Ryger Rivers, Walder Rivers and Black Walder Frey. "You must think what I think" isn't really need here. If one person want to think McCaugherty and Plester were suppose to be the same character, that's fine, (it's a nice pay off to that look McCaugherty gives Michelle Fairley) and if another person thinks they're separate characters, that's fine too. That's how it now for Rickard Karstark and Steven Blount and seems like it would the simplest for Walder Rivers and Bryan McCaugherty. Ardilaun (talk) 17:15, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
1 - We're arguing that in the TV continuity, "Black Walder" is "Black Walder Rivers", a composite of book-Black Walder Frey and book-Walder Rivers.
2 - We did want to know if anyone thought it was the same character, just recast, but Walder Frey has more than enough bastards to go around.
3 - It was needlessly confusing to list them by actor instead of by character.
4 -...yes, yes we need to "be more definite". How is Rickard Karstark being recast between Season 1 and Season 2 remotely comparable, to the point that you would say "we will never know if that guy in Season 1 was Rickard Karstark"...he was identified as Karstark in casting materials and has Karstark's lines from the book.
5 - ...yes, yes, you must "think what I think and acknowledge it as fact"...that's the very concept behind an online encyclopedia! Separating out the facts. "If another person thinks they're separate characters, that's fine too"...this entire conversation has been about picking one or the other so they don't remain in a state of flux!
Well let me clarify: I myself might be outvoted on a decision, after which I have to accept that decision. You're just being petulant by overtly stating, "well whatever consensus decides as policy, I'm still going to defiantly think the other thing is true!"....yes, tacitly, when people get outvoted they think their view was correct...but they are still expected to quietly accept the decision and acknowledge it as wiki policy until such time as it is changed based on new information. Do you seriously think it isn't rude to post "well I'm just going to keep thinking what I think regardless of the consensus vote you achieve here"?
6 - NO, THAT is not what we currently have for Karstark! Karstark was recast, plain and simple.
That isn't how wikis...work.
I want you to acknowledge that this is how wikis work, instead of pouting about it.
What...what was behind all of your pervasive demands to be allowed to work on family trees...if the underlying facts behind them are "open to interpretation"? Why bother making a family tree in which TV-Margaery is older than TV-Loras, the reverse of the books....if you also feel that "if another person wants to think differently, that's fine too"?