Scafloc

That looks pretty good, Scafloc!

Is it possible to do something similar with Template:Infobox character and Template:Noble House? For instance, Sansa's article could have an uncollapsed AGOT infobox followed by a collapsed ADWD infobox (with info about her marriage to Tyrion and Alayne nickname). House Florent could have an uncollapsed AGOT infobox (with them in control of Brightwater Keep) and a collapsed ADWD infobox (discussing their attainder). I think the templates would have to be changed to allow them to be collapsible, though.

I'll check what I can do

Not sure if it is possible to include two collapsible elements in one table. It is probably better to use two templates like you suggested or two tables on the same template. Like this.

About showing the change: I think it would be hard to present the changes in the tables in a clear way. What would the Great House row of the table look? "Used to be House Stark, is as of the end of A Storm of Swords" House Bolton.

We should also take into account that it seems that the Manderlys and Stannis do not seem to have accepted this. Although this issue is unrelated to the problem how to show the changes (in nice way)

Eddard really doesn't display any negative emotion in the series, other than to the Lannisters. He never says anything bad about Aerys who definitely killed his father and brother, so I don't really see the importance of saying that he doesn't feel anything towards Rhaegar who might have raped his sister. For him, the matter was settled when both died.

Eddard does not wear his emotions on his sleeve but it is clear he does like some people: for instance Jorah Mormont "Would that I might forget him." and also Aerys “Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?” and (on Roberts deathbed) “not so bad as Aerys, Your Grace. Not near so bad as Aerys.”

How should the differences be shown? And what is the base; begin of Agot or end adwd?

Wouldn't it be possible to make a template where the situation as of Game is displayed, and with a collapsible part on the bottom displaying the situation as of the last released book (in this case Dance)?

Somewhat like this?

I think the editor noticed that where Robert really hates Rhaegar, Eddard does not display that emotion. I think this difference is noteworthy. Especially as Robert accused Rhaegar of having raped Eddard's sister. It looks a bit like "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time".

But I agree that "neutral" may be too strong worded. Better to just to state that Eddard's only thought about Rheagar that is mentioned in the books, is that he did not think Rhaegar had frequented brothels.

My preference was to have the info in the templates as of the begin in of the books. And as second option to implement a show/hide for the templates.

I think there was also a suggestion to use a setting to indicate which book should be used as base, the Tower of the Hand has this. But I don't think this is possible with the wiki software.

We have been over the spoiler policy a number of times.

I suggested that we should use show / hide tags to prevent spoilers and that death dates should not be included in the family trees. However the majority held the opinion that there would be no prevent spoiler policy so I guess this applies to this as well.

It is clearly the same character thus 1 article

I agree; Pate is dead

IIRC, it was the ConCarolinas Westerlands reading which revealed "his widow, Johanna", which was then cross-referenced with the MUSH tree for House Lannister, to reveal that she was a Westerling..

I believe the MUSH itself it not canonical.

The society originated in the volcanic slave mines of Valyria, prior to the founding of Braavos and the Doom of Valyria. The tale of its beginnings centers around a figure of unknown origins who was the first Faceless Man. This man heard the prayers of the slaves to their various gods and came to conclude that they all prayed to the same god "with a hundred different faces", the Many-Faced God, and that he was "that god's instrument". This led to him giving "the first gift" to the most desperate slave. The first Faceless Man later brought the gift to the masters as well,[1] leading many fans to speculate that the society was somehow involved in the Doom.[2]

About the bolded part.. "leading many fans to speculate..." the source for that leads to a thread here on the forum.. Does this count as speculation, and should it thus be removed?

ETA: because I forgot to bold the text... :)

In this case I do not think the fan speculation is very important. But in some cases the fact that fans speculate on something is noteworthy.

For instance Jon's parentage. Without at least nothing that fans speculate a lot about it the articile about Jon can never be complete.

Please take note that the wiki is not restricted to the content of the books. We also write about the reception, critics and so. In the case of Jon's parentage the fan speculation should definitetely be part of the Jon article.

Isn't it a better idea to add to the Theories page a remark that clarifies that the theory is proven? That way we can still check why this was -> if you delete a page another user may not be aware of that and could try to add it again

There is another reason why it is unlikely that Jeor Mormont fought for the Targaryens:

His son Jorah fought in the Battle of the Trident on the side of the rebels. (ASOS 57)

Didn't Jeor explain to Jon that he took the black so Jorah could take over? The bequeathing Longclaw chapter?

( In AGoT, Jeor said he was acquainted with Stannis which must have been from RR and Stannis wouldn't be the type to hang out with 'new loyalists'. I speculated that Jeor was part of the force to take Dragonstone since he must have some naval experience to add to the effort.)

Jon gets Longclaw in chapter 60. In it Jeor only says:

The Mormonts have carried it for five centuries. I wielded it in my day and passed it on to my son when I took the black."

"Took the black" is not very specific. I thought that there was an exact reference that Jeor abdicated in favor of his son. -> Makrell mentioned he might have been a Targ loyalist and could have been made to take the black.

It still seems unlikely to me but I guess it cannot be disproven

I don't have the books with my but I think in A Clash of Kings-Chapter 12 Jorah tells Daenerys that his father abdicated after his (first) marriage. I don't think there is an exact year mentioned but as Jorah marriage with Lynesse is right after Balon's Rebellion and he had been married to his first wife for 10 years.

In my opinion an expression itself is not noteworthy enough to merit a page. Take for instance "A Lannister always pays his depts". This is also mentioned a number of times but I think a paragraph or a few lines in the House Lannister article is sufficient.

The difference with The Game Of Thrones of course is that GOT links to the name of the first book. This is interesting. Has GRRM mentioned why he used this expression? Are there (noteworthy) critics who have discussed this? And why did the producers chose this name?

This kind of information would give the article more body in stead repating info from other pages.

The current content does not add much to the wiki in my opinion. Is there more info info? I remember that Cersei uses this expression during her meeting with Ned. Has GRRM mentioned anything about this?

If there is very few information it may not justify a separate page. An alternative would be to add to article of the 1st book a few line that describes how the expression is used as is done in the article on wikipedia.

I meant that I would prefer to have one article with finalized rules about layout. I don't mind about a draft page or right away on the manual of style.

About your suggestions replacing "History" with "Biography" sounds good! "History" is not very precise; "Biography" is definitely better.

"Recent Events" in capitals does not bother me but I have no problem if we are going to change it.

We have a manual of style. It also contains information about the layout. Let's expand it first. Only if the page becomes too large then we should create a new page.

I tried all the regular different skins to see if I could recreate the error but to no avail. I also checked if you have a personal skin (with code to would explain the layout) but nothing. So I have no clue what causes this. Sorry

The screencap is not there anymore. Is the problem solved? if not do you have an example of a page where it occurs?

Congrats Scafloc. More than anyone you should get some credit for seeing it from near start to present. You're the only one I've seen other than Ran and maybe Werthead who stuck through it. Too bad they won't give you a title on the boards because I would nominate The Great Shepherd as your new one.

Hi TPG, good to see you back!

Really lots of people helped out. We began in 2007 with a few articles copied from wikipedia. Then started changing them and adding new ones. If you look back at our first pages it really amazing how far we have come.

Especially the last few years the quality has gone up!

I have the impression that the maintenance reports are not ok. For instance the Uncategorized files report has no results. That would mean that every files has been added to a category. That seems to be good to be true.

This page may give some clues how to fix it.