Oneiros Drakontos

Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, it's weird. It could be a mistake, although I'm inclined to think that the text means to refer to the Mountains of the Morn, because Asabhad doesn't seem to be near the main roads of the Bones.

Actually, the page doesn't talk of "crossing" mountains, it says "Asabhad is where many caravans begin their journey to the Mountains of the Morn". I don't think it's an error, they are caravans that pass through Further East.

Given also the name, Far Wind, the branch of the Lonely Light is plausibly the founding one. Moving the page of the Sealskin Point branch is a good idea.

House Farring's coat of arms is incorrect and should be fixed. The current COA depicts two knights on a horse, but according to Citadel the knights are on foot. Indeed, the Farring knights are simply blazoned as knights combatant, without any reference to horses, differently from the knight of House Risley, who is appropriately blazoned as a knight on a horse. This is how the fixed COA could be: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gotascent/images/d/d5/250px-House_Farring.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20170830110718

I think you're right. There's no clear indication that Littlefinger founded a new House. House Baelish is a single House with two seats, just like the Targaryens had Dragonstone, the Red Keep and Summerhall. I'd merge the pages.

In my opinion it doesn't seem the text states that the day of the coronation is also the first day of 1 AC. It's mentioned that the start date of the reign is the second coronation instead of the first (Even the start date is a matter of some misconception. Many assume, wrongly, that the reign of King Aegon I Targaryen began on the day he landed at the mouth of the Blackwater Rush, etc.), not that the first day of 1 AC and the first day of the reign are the same. The day of the coronation in the Starry Sept could be in the middle of the year 1 AC, for all we know. It is possibile that Aegon's Conquest simply changed the way years are counted, while days and months are still counted as before the Conquest, for example based on the movements of the celestial bodies or the Faith holydays.

In the text it's never said the first year of Aegon's reign started exactly in the first day of the new calendar. Furthermore, it doesn't seem that the war started in 3 BC (most of Aegon's actual conquering took place from 2-1 BC; The World of Ice & Fire) For example, it is possibile that the Conquest started on the second month of 2 BC and ended in the fourth month of 1 AC, with the beginning of the reign in the middle of the year. That would mean, indeed, that the war lasted more than two years.

In the text it's implied that there isn't a year 0. We know that the Conquest lasted two years, from 2 BC to 1 AC. If there was a year 0 it would be three years.

A question for @Ran. The first Lord of Highgarden is called Harlen Tyrell in the appendices of the main series, while is called Harlan in The World of Ice & Fire, Fire & Blood and The Rise of the Dragon. Which should it be the correct spelling? Personally I think it shoud be Harlan, since it is the most recent, is the most used and is featured in the book texts, not only in the appendices. Thank you in advance.

In my opinion they are equated with traditional rock wives, because they are not concubines kidnapped in raids, an exception to the rule. In doubt, I would not categorize their children as salt ones.

Do you mean the comment saying Alysanne never was Maegor's daughter in Targaryen's family tree is the correct one? (English is not my native language, I want to be sure I don't misunderstand)

According to the Did you know/119 page, The reference is a 2018 comment by @Ran However, in Alysanne Targaryen's Behind the Scenes section, there's a note that says: In this case, the reference is a 2017 comment by Ran. Which is the correct reference, the most recent or the less recent?

Perhaps the black chief is a mistake and it is really white. A black battering ram would be barely visible on a black chief. Otherwise it could mean that the black ram fills up the chief entirely, which is why they are both black. In doubt, I would write "on a chief", not specifying the color, and would make the ram bigger.

It seems the login issue affects my account once in a month. It's been a couple of days I cannot save my edits.

In my opinion it's safe to say that "born that same year" refers to the year mentioned a few lines earlier, that is 7 AC, when Aenys was born.

I'm having again the login issue after my session stopped working and I had to log out. Is someone else getting the error message?

I'm having the same problem right now.

I've rewritten the sentence explaining that there are no references about Rhaenyra knowing what happened to Daemon.

In the Houses by Region templates, the houses listed below the Great Houses are called Noble Houses. Wouldn't it be more accurate call them Lordly Houses, since they are ruled by lords? Great, Knightly and Masterly Houses are noble, too.

Such a note may also be useful for Hunnimore, I think, even though his article is shorter than Raymont's.

I've found a couple of fan-made timelines that set the Battle of the Bells in late 282: 10th month of 282 Last month of 282

I have a doubt about the exact year of the Battle of the Bells. In the wiki page the date is 283, but if I recall correctly there's some unofficial timelines that indicate (late) 282 as the actual year. In general, it seems to me that the dates of the events of Robert's Rebellion are not always clear. Is 283 correct?

@Thomaerys Velaryon In Sunfyre's page there's an inaccuracy. It's written that Rhaenyra laughed when she saw the crippled Sunfyre, but that's only Septon Eustace's telling. Mushroom tells a different story: Sunfyre's page needs to have both version of the fact in order to be unbiased.

Since "his master" means "the squire's master", I think "his daughter" means "the squire's daughter". Sorry for the intrusion, I have to report a mistake in Alicent's page. In the paragraph "Early life" it's said: The reported source for that is Fire & Blood, Heirs of the Dragon - A Question of Succession. However, in F&B there are no references about a tryst involving Daemon; instead there's a refererence about Jaehaerys I: The reference about Daemon can be found in The Rogue Prince, and can be considered outdated after F&B publishing: My advice is to replace the speculation about Daemon in Alicent's page with the rumor about Jaehaerys I.

A mistake in Alicent's page In the paragraph "Early life" it's said: Already early in the reign of Viserys, Ser Otto and Prince Daemon Targaryen were at odds with each other, and the court fool Mushroom has suggested that the quarrel between the two men began when Daemon deflowered Alicent. The truths of these tales have never been uncovered. The reported source for that is Fire & Blood, Heirs of the Dragon - A Question of Succession. However, in F&B there are no references about a tryst involving Daemon; instead there's a refererence about Jaehaerys I: A few even cast doubt on Lady Alicent’s virtue, suggesting she had welcomed King Viserys into her bed even before Queen Aemma’s death. (These calumnies were never proved, though Mushroom repeats them in his Testimony and goes so far as to claim that reading was not the only service Lady Alicent performed for the Old King in his bedchamber.) The reference about Daemon can be found in The Rogue Prince, and can be considered outdated after F&B publishing: A few cast doubt on Lady Alicent’s virtue, suggesting she had given her maidenhead to Prince Daemon and later welcomed King Viserys into her bed as well, even before Queen Aemma’s death. My advice is to replace the speculation about Daemon with the rumor about Jaehaerys I.