The Wondering Wolf

I seem to remember GRRM does the appendices himself, maybe @Ran can clarify. Anyway, just because they contain some mistakes does not mean we can't use them. Anything published under GRRM's name is canon unless it contradicts something else. That said, I would just state that the heir of House Yronwood is unknown and leave it at that. No need for further speculation.

Given the enthusiasm of our wiki editors, I don't think this is a real danger. :-) But of course the decision whether a page should be created or not needs to be made as the case arises. Anyway, this only came up as a side issue, my main point still is that GRRM likes his Lord Stauntons unnamed and merging Lord Staunton's page into the history section of his house would solve the issue.

Exactly. Sure, these would be pretty minor adjustments, though. In my opinion there is a slight tendency of over-creating articles in the wiki, especially with lords lacking a given name. I know creating article is fun, but if people want to read about the Lord Staunton who stayed with Maegor or want to learn more about Cassella's father, the House Staunton page will serve them well. No-one will search for Lord Staunton and leave disappointedly just because that page doesn't exist.

I mean it would make sense for sure, but question remains if this is enough to state it as fact. One of the issues of the book is that it introduces a lot of characters with their given names only stated later or not at all. I've already mentioned the case of Lord Darklyn, but there are also several references to Lord Tully in the Sons of the Dragon chapter and in my opinion there are good reasons to assume they refer to at least two different Tully lords. So I think it's just impossible to tell if the Lord Staunton who stayed with Maegor is the same who died of the Shivers in 59 AC. I don't think there were more than two, but even if that was the case, it would be impossible to tell where to make the cut between them. Sure, but I think the wiki should present only things we can prove. Otherwise we would open Pandora's box. Of course not. I would delete the article and put the content into House Staunton's page, one paragraph dealing with the Staunton stuff from 48 to 59 AC, stating something like "It is not clear whether these Lord Stauntons were one or more individuals" after the last footnote.

Since I got no reply the last time, new try. @Thomaerys Velaryon

That's a very tricky question, because there are different generation concepts with different periods. I would take a look at the Targaryen family. 14 generations between 29 BC and 280 AC means an average of 22 years (which is interestesting because I would have assumed the length of a generation in a noble house was between 20 and 25). So if '50 generation' does not refer to the number of lords, the Griffin Throne has been in possession of the Conningtons for around 1100 years.

The page of Viserys II Targaryen states: Viserys was wed at age twelve to the family's eldest daughter, Larra, in 134 AC, despite her being seven years his senior. Same with the page of Larra Rogare: At the age of nineteen, Larra married the twelve-year-old Prince Viserys Targaryen in 134 AC, while Viserys was a hostage to House Rogare. This is based on a statement from the Worldbook: The wife of King Viserys II Targaryen, who gave birth to both King Aegon IV (the Unworthy) and Prince Aemon the Dragonknight, was the Lady Larra Rogare of Lys. She was a great beauty of Valyrian descent, and seven years the prince's elder when she wed him at nine-and-ten. I guess most of the Regency material of the Worldbook is based on the chapters in F&B. But there it reads: Bambarro Bazanne died in the Disputed Lands in 132 AC [...]. Upon his death, it was discovered that he had been enormously in debt, whereupon his cred- itors seized his manse. His wife and children were sold into slavery, and his furnishings, clothing, books, and other valuables, including the captive princeling, passed into the hands of another nobleman, Lysandro Rogare. [...] Viserys Targaryen was so striking that it is said Lysandro Rogare contemplated putting him to work as a courtesan ... until the boy identified himself. Once he knew he had a prince in hand, the magister quickly revised his plans. Instead of selling the prince’s favors, he married him to his youngest daughter, the Lady Larra Rogare [...]. So while no specific date is given, this could indicate the wedding took place in 133 or even 132 AC. Not sure if this is a case for the errata page, but I would propose to remove the date and ages for the wedding in the wiki articles.

Possible. In the end we don't know that the throne is as old as the house, though. Just as '50 generation' could be a figurative way to say 'we have been here for a very long time'. But assuming fifty was an accurate number, I think 30 years per generation is too much.

The term 'generation' seems to be used rather broadly. Yandel speaks about five generations from 184 to 260 AC (including five kings) and four more generations that had to deal with the Blackfyres after the First Rebellion. So 50 generations could easily refer to the number of lords (including three brothers in a row for example).

Alright, seems to be a case for the errata page then.

@Ranivaka The maps Michael Gellatly drew for the Worldbook contain some inaccuracies compared to the maps from Lands of Ice and Fire. Do you know which source(s) Gellatly used for his work? I'm asking because I just noticed Lands places Godsgrace west of the junction of Vaith and Scourge, but the Worldbook places it northeast - just as the map in AFFC does.

First it seems weird to me that they were taken unaware, although Prince Aegon would have told them about the approaching fleet. But my main point is about the timing. The Gay Abandon sets sail "in the waning days of 129". Not sure which day that would be, but I guess it's not the last one of the year, so let's assume it is the 364th one. Why was Corlys Velaryon not able to prepare his fleet for the attack when it's clear there must have passed several days between Aegon's arrival and the battle? I also wonder why the Triarchy did not attack right after their encounter with the Gay Abandon. I think this is an error due to shifting the date of the battle from late 129 to early 130 AC.

Hm, is it actually the case that any clan member can bear the name of the clan? I don't remember that from the books. Thanks for editing the article.

Sure, but this actually does not apply only to clan members, but you could always ask if this Moore or that Tollett really belong to the main line or maybe rather to a knightly side branch we have not learned about so far, one could even ask if the guy is still considered noble at all because he might be so far removed from the main line he never met the current head of the house (like a Lothor Brune situation). My main point is: If you like, you can find a lot of reasons why the association of this or that character with this or that house or region is not sure. Maybe in this particular case we can find some compromise. What about: Billy Burley was a longbowman in the service of House Blackwood during the Dance of the Dragons.[1][2] His name indicates some relationship to House Burley, a mountain clan in the north.

I see your points (and also the one made by Thomaerys). But as I said, if you followed this way accurately, many pages would need to be revised. For example, you could not associate most of the Kingsguard members with a house, because you never know if Maladon Moore and Jon Tollett actually were from the Vale houses or maybe from a house of the same name in another region. Taking this further, many historical characters who get mentioned only once or twice could not be associated with a house or a region, because the text does not explicitly say so. This would make it unnecessarily complicated, though, so I think when a character with the name of a known family is mentioned, he or she should be associated with that house by default - except there are good reasons not to do so. And in my opinion, serving a house in a different region is none. There are two Burleys mentioned in F&B, and I see no reason why only one of them would belong to House Burley.

Why wouldn't he, though? The Blackwoods themselves descend from the north and still worship the old gods, so there is not even a huge cultural difference in that regard. And I think it makes sense for a younger son of the mountain clans to leave his home. If you go by the 'we can not say for sure' approach there are a lot of pages that would need to be revised.

The page of Bill Burley states he possibly was a member of House Burley. In any other case a historical character has a family name of a known house, he or she is associated with that house, so I am not sure why there are reservations in this case.

I thought about her, too, but at least it would not surprise me if there had been women in the Marches who were passed over because of their gender. Actually I just wanted to make the point that there are so many possibilities that it's impossible to tell which one ist the likeliest of them. Sure, but this happens all the time in the book. Characters get introduced and we have no idea what happens to them later.

Maybe, but I think even if Alan had succeeded Donald, he could have been a nephew or younger brother, because the Marcher lords prefer male heirs, but that's only guesswork. Easiest solution would be that one was the son of the other (although Donald could have been the younger brother of Alan, too). Maybe we meet Lord Tarly in F&B 2.

@Thomaerys Velaryon I think you are confusing the two Alans. The MUSH only includes Alan Beesbury. There are a few possibilities for the Tarly family tree, but in the end it comes down to the fact that Donald could have ruled after the Dance, as well.

Since the Canon guide says "Please note the "verified" qualifier -- origin with Martin must be an established fact, not simply assumed" and we can't be sure that the information in the Campaign Guide is from GRRM, I would propose to remove the book from the semi-canon section.

Semi-canon means it is a source that can be traced back to GRRM himself, but the information has not appeared in the books so far, so it could still be changed. Now Elio indicated the Campaign Guide makes up a lot of stuff on its own and thus is not semi-canon.

I once made a list of things based on the Campaign Guide. It seems to me the book is mostly as canon as the TV series, which is none, so I guess most of these parts should be removed or backed up by canon sources.

The wiki also states that based on the semi-canon Campaign Guide Robin is the Lord of Flint's Finger, but I seem to remember you said that the book isn't really semi-canon, so do you think that part should be removed?

@Ran The Citadel page of the Flints of Flint's Finger mentions Robin, indicating he is a member of the house, although the appendix says he is the son of Lady Lyessa Flint of Widow's Watch. The wiki uses this source to make Robin a Flint of Flint's Finger, but I am not sure that this is right.