direpupy

I have a question. The arms of house Peake are three black castles on orange with the castles representing the three castles/seats they once held starpike, whitegrove and Dunstonbury, but they only gained Dunstonbury after they drove the Manderly's from the reach at the behest of the Gardeners. So presumably before they gained Dustonbury there arms where different. Is this something we should mention on the page for house Peake?

I saw that to, i fixed it.

I agree with The Wondering Wolf on this its an overview of the character and while i think the predecessor and successor of inheritable titles are useful in the infobox they are not necessary, and if they clutter the box to the point of defeating the purpose of the box they should be removed. For non-inheritable titles i do not think its useful at all, people who want to know about who held that title would go to the page about that title anyway, so it would then only be for the convenience of editors which should never be a leading principle. As for lovers that is really something for the main text not an infobox but that is my personal opinion.

predecessors/successors make sence in the case of inheritible titels, but for positions on the small counsil i think its overkill. The lovers thing i think is also overkill such information can be found in the text on the page.

I agree, that image should not be on the book page as the main image. I have removed it from the infobox when and if she gets a show page it can be used there.

I think its they other way round gold stag on green field, since the stag is worked in gold thread upon a green tunic. But to answer the question it probably is.

I was stating my personal believe and know that assumptions are made in many cases, i do like the compromise but do not have the time to do this right now i will try to get to it as soon as i can.

That the houses are all founded in the Dawn Age is based on they idea that Golden Age equates to Dawn Age for which there is no evidence, and the idea that unreliable narrator does not include the historian making mistakes or using vague language in there continuity, something you have no evidence for. If it is not downright stated it should not end up on the wiki as a fact and in this case it is not downright stated, so while you can put it up as speculation or "most likely" i would not put it up as a fact.

That's a dangerous assumption with George's tendency for unreliable narrator which is why he wanted it to be a book that was written in universe by a maester to begin with, so he could justify the unreliability of the texts. Agreed, its why i am against placing any of these houses in either age definitively. I agree and it is an interesting thing to ponder, but that would be something for the general forum not the wiki forum.

So you believe no First Men houses where founded in The Age of Heroes in the Westerlands, because that would be the implication of that interpretation. Its why the very clear cut from general history to the history of one house is in my opinion more important, and this would also explain why the term golden age is used instead of Dawn Age or Age of Heroes. There would be no reason to use that if they where all founded in the same age Dawn or Heroes.

They only clear cut there for me is the cut between general history and the history of one house (house Casterly) So house Casterly being from the Dawn Age does not mean the houses in the general history spoken of before that are also from the Dawn Age.

I don't dispute that, i dispute that these houses are al placed in the Dawn Age because they only mention of the Dawn Age is in relation to house Casterly directly. For the other houses it is left vague like most of the ancient history.

Exept that George does not do clean cuts like that in his ancient history and one of his most beloved tricks in writing is the unreliable narrator, this is most likely why he uses the term Golden Age of the First Men and not Dawn Age or Age of Heroes. A Golden age is an age in which people thrive and the First Men thrived in both the Dawn Age and the Age of Heroes so it could be either one, but also and this in my opinion is the most likely option both together, encompassing both ages at the same time.

I edited my post probably while you where typing this response, its not clear for any of them because they only clear mention of the Dawn Age is in relation to house Casterly. See my previeus post for the edit.

So i looked up the piece of text and there is a split between the first men houses of the westerlands. The World of Ice and Fire - The Westerlands Many and more great houses trace their roots back to this golden age of the First Men. Amongst these are the Hawthornes, the Footes, the Brooms, and the Plumms. On Fair Isle, the longships of the Farmans helped defend the western coast against ironborn reavers. The Greenfields raised a vast timber castle called the Bower (now simply Greenfield), built entirely of weirwood. The Reynes of Castamere made a rich system of mines, caves, and tunnels as their own subterranean seat, whilst the Westerlings built the Crag above the waves. Other houses sprang from the loins of legendary heroes, of whom tales are told to this very day: the Crakehalls from Crake the Boarkiller, the Baneforts from the Hooded Man, the Yews from the Blind Bowman Alan o' the Oak, the Morelands from Pate the Plowman. The ones that sprang from the loins of legendary heroes would be from The Age of Heroes. The whole bit about the golden age of the first men only applies to the houses mentioned right after it, and then the question becomes what is the golden age of the first men. The mention of the Dawn Age later in the text only applies to house casterly.: The World of Ice and Fire - The Westerlands Though never kings, the Casterlys became the richest lords in all of Westeros and the greatest power in the westerlands, and remained so for hundreds of years. By then the Dawn Age had given way to the Age of Heroes. So while i agree that the houses in the first half of the text are most likely from the Dawn Age the ones from after that are most likely from The Age of Heroes, but because the only mention of the Dawn Age is in relation to House Casterly we can only be certain about them.

I would not remove them, at most make it clear that there is conflicting evidence about if they where founded in the Dawn Age or The Age of Heroes.

This is why i have not changed it for any other house yet, only the case for house Casterly is clear enough for this. They where founded in the Dawn Age and replaced by House Lannister in the Age of Heroes. For other houses it is less clear because of the conflicting sources.

The confusion probably came from the term Golden age of the First Men which is mentioned earlier in the text but you are right they are founded in the Dawn Age. I have already changed it on the wiki

That would be a good solution, but i do want to stress that because of the elaborate passing over theory this would not be a small mistake.

This would not be a little mistake but an entire elaborate theory that is based on no offense absolutly nothing. But i agree we should wait what others say.

I thought we stopped doing that after we found out that the appendixses of the books where not made by GRRM but by his publishers (based on ifo from GRRM but stil) and we also have GRRM changing his mind about birth orders on several occasions. And the appendix from ADWD is also the appendix that specificaly states that she is his his eldest daughter not his eldest child. Also the ADWD appendix is the one with the Clifford Swan mistake in it.

@Thomaerys Velaryon I undid your change to to the Yronwood page because your note on they heir was based on they assumption that Ynys Yronwood is Anders Yronwood's oldest child, but this is not true. She is only ever called his oldest daughter which only tells us that she is older then her sister but says nothing about whether ore not she is older then her brother. I know they idea that Ynys got passed over for her brother as heir is a popular one on the forum, but it is not based on anything. There is no reason to assume her marriage to they heir of an other house is a reason for her to be passed over, for example the Peakes held multiple Lordships and the Lady Stokeworth claims that Rosby should go to her on Gyles Rosby's death. A popular reason given for they assumption Ynys is older then her brother Cletus is that she has two children, but with noble lady's flowering at age 13 and being married at a young age as well Ynys could have been born as late as 286 AC (see the age calculation on the wiki for Ynys) Cletus on they other hand was of an age with Quentyn Martell who in 300 AC is 18 which means Cletus could be as much as 4 or 5 years older then Ynys. I therefore think that we can not assume that Ynys ever got passed over at all.

I get what you are saying and in this particular case i agree, but as a caution, watch out that the pendulum does not swing they other way sometimes even if its a minor thing there are good reasons for giving it a page of its own.

So if i understand you correctly you want to migrate the content of the page to the house Staunton page and turn it into a paragraph there, with a note attached to it saying we do not know if there was one or more lords Staunton in this period? If you do this you also have to alter the historical member section of the house Staunton page and the page of Cassela Staunton which has a link to the page you want to delete. Not saying that you should not do it, but keep in mind that this has consequences for other pages.

@Ran The Randor they Exile page does not show a coat of arms, but if i am not mistaken your profile picture is they arms of Randor they Exile, which would make sence since its a homage to you but would you have the file so it can be added to the wiki page?