The Wondering Wolf

I've stumbled upon a "new" Turkish Ice and Fire wiki on Fandom, so I'll leave a link here in case you want to change the interwiki link domain. Asoiaf Viki | Fandom

As Howland is one of the two who "lived to ride away", he definitely knows what happened. Doesn't change the fact that Ned thinks the others died, though.

The lines The hairy bear cited don't come from the dream, but are Ned's thoughts when he speaks with Alyn about Jory's death.

I'll leave it up to you how to handle it, I would just like to remind you that ignoring objections because you consider something likely is not in the spirit of a wiki community. I gave you some reasons which I consider weighty enough to make the case ambiguous and not as clear as you present it. But in the end it's not important enough for me to have lengthy discussions about Byron's potential daughter, so do as you like.

Just what it said before your last change.

I don't agree with the latest change you made to the note. There's a chance that the squire couldn't get home immediately after the incident, so he wrote to his daughter and also told her about the recent events. In my opinion it's more likely he went back to Stonehelm to tell Lord Swann what happened (if the squire had written to Byron's relatives, one could expect that Lord Swann would have been the recipient instead of a daughter, anyway) and maybe he ended up in Borros's host. There can also be several reasons why the squire was already elder. I don't say it must have been the squire's daughter, but preferring one option over the other isn't the right choice for the wiki when it's ambiguous like that.

@direpupy Ser Byron's squire saw his master die, and wrote his daughter of the manner of it. I'm no native speaker, but it seems to me said daughter was the squire's one and not Byron's. Or at least it's ambiguous.

When there can be three Grand Maesters within two years, I'm sure there can be five High Septons within twelve years.

Well, he wasn't born in 9 AC, but BC. Being 53 years in 43 AC, he would have been in his early thirties at the point of his election (assuming he was chosen around 21 or 22 AC).

This point has came up before, but I guess at least some of them would have been rather old when they were elected. And looking at the list of popes, there were six popes between 523 and 537, so it's even a thing in real world. It would also help to explain why the Most Devout chose a guy in his early thierties: they finally wanted a High Septon who wouldn't die two or three years later.

Right now there are two pages for the High Septons during the reign of Aegon I and during the reigns of Aenys and Maegor. In my opinion, these are the same character. The first one is known to be the uncle of Ceryse Hightower, the second one is said to be "kin by marriage to the Hightowers" (Worldbook, Oldtown section). Now it's not impossible that these are two characters and both of them are related to the Hightowers, it's not very likely, though. But even if you consider them to be different characters, there should be a note stating the possibility they aren't.

Jon is not only listed as brother-in-law to Mace in the AGOT appendix, but also among the bannermen, so he's more than some random knight for sure. I would say it's pretty safe he's the head of the house. While Owen Fossoway was Lord of Cider Hall, we can't even be sure they are still a lordly house. The app states they are just knights. So it seems something happened to them, which might be related to Steffon and Derrick Fossoway.

I seem to remember discussing this topic some years ago, and someone pointed out that they considered the appendix of AGOT, which includes Jon as one of the Tyrell bannermen, a big hint that he is the head. Same with Tanton because of the ASOS appendix. But no actual confirmation indeed. Not sure about the twin part, but siblings would make sense for sure.

@Ran We had similiar discussions before, but it seems the Force is strong with the ones who love creating articles, so I guess we need another clarification. There are pages for characters now that aren't canon, coming from rewritten chapters. In my opinion it would suffice to redirect these characters' names to 'Behind the scenes' sections on pages they are the most related to (Maenar Blackfyre to Maelys, Corzo zo Merreq to Band of Nine, and so on). Given GRRM's way of writing, the number of pages for such characters would only grow in time.

Either that or Sansa just got it wrong.

The page of Viserys's I son Daeron says, he joined Lord Ormund Hightower when Ormund left Oldtown at the beginning of the Dance. But I think the text makes it clear that Daeron stayed behind and only left the city after Ormund had been caught at the Honeywine. It's said that the Arryns of Gulltown had split from their noble kin during the reign of Jaehaerys I, Isembard Arryn is categorised as noble, though.

Well, when you ask the current head of the family (some great-great-grandson of Wilhelm II) what he thinks about restoring the monarchy, he tells you 'There is no majority for that' instead of 'What the fuck did you smoke?'.

@Ran F&B says: To me this implies the wedding of Aliandra and Drazenko was one of the events in early 135 AC. But TROTD says: Placing it in 134 AC. Did you get any further confirmation by GRRM or was it your own conclusion?

There is a line which tells you how Rhaenyra died

We have also discussed the matter recently over here. @Ran I was surprised about the line in TROTD that Rhaenyra disowned Mooton because she blamed him for Daemon's death. I think it was the first time that it's made clear that she knew about Daemon's death before she fled King's Landing. Was that a deliberate choice on your side?

I think it was an issue when F&B had not been published because some information did not make sense then. The problem is my conversation with Elio got lost because of the troubles they had with the site years ago, and I can not really remember the exact reasoning why it seems Helaena's death took place a bit earlier than the battle. I think it is because there is a period of two weeks between the Black Council meeting (Rhaenyra sending the letter to Maidenpool, Corlys's arrest, Maidenpool switching sides immediately) and the battle, but Rhaenyra only disowns the Mootons during the riots. It also seems unlikely to me that the "riotous mob" Corlys's men joined after their lords arrest would have been allowed to stir up trouble so long. The Worldbook says: On the twenty-second day of the fifth moon of the year 130 AC, Aemond One-eye and Daemon Targaryen entered their last battle. On that same day, chaos and death seized King’s Landing. Queen Rhaenyra had imprisoned Lord Corlys for helping his grandson, Ser Addam Velaryon, escape arrest when he was accused of treason. Some of the Sea Snake’s sworn swords joined the riotous mob in Cobbler’s Square, and some scaled the walls to try to free the Sea Snake, only to be hanged when they were caught. Queen Helaena then fell to her death, impaled on the spikes surrounding Maegor’s Holdfast—a suicide some said, and others a murder. And that night, the city burned as the Shepherd’s mob marched on the Dragonpit, attempting to slay all the dragons within. It is not even clear which event the bolded text actually refers to, because it indicates all these events took place at a single day, which is clearly wrong. Corlys's men defected and joined the mob or climbed the walls to get home (not to free Corlys), Woodwright and True tried to free Corlys, but were executed on the morning of day M. I expect there must have been at least a few days between Corlys's arrest and the executions. In the evening of day M Helaena died. In the subsequent night rumours about the manner of her death were circulated in the city. The riots started in the evening of night N and lasted throughout the whole night. Order could be restored partially at day O, but in the evening the Storming of the Dragonpit took place.

@Thomaerys Velaryon I'm not sure that Helaena actually died at the 22th day of the fifth month. The temporal connection is only mentioned in the Worldbook (which is quite wrong on the sequence of events in this regard) and @Ran once said that he doesn't think the date for the uprising is accurate.

I think I have been the one who has brought up this topic before. Usually artists don't keep the rights for artwork that is commissioned by publishers, so they aren't able to give permission for use of their artwork in the first place. One would have to ask the publisher or GRRM himself, depending on who exactly holds the rights. Since Ran thought that neither of them would have any issues with the wiki using the artwork, he said that it's alright as it is, although I think the templates should be adjusted.

Sure, but that's not what the calculation says. All we know about her is that she lived in the second century after the Conquest. She can't have been born after 167 AC, but she could have been born as early as 100 AC. And she can't have died before 140 AC, but she could have lived until 220 AC or an even later point. So of course her date of birth defines the date of her death. If she had been born in 120 AC, she could have died in 140 AC. If she had been born in 160 AC, she would have died around 180 AC as the earliest option.

While you stumbled upon one of the most useless wiki calculations, it's not wrong, though. All we can say is that she must have been born by 167 AC (I assume she was born in the early 130ies, but based on the calculation guidelines there is no way to prove it) and died after 140 AC (maybe she has lived up to the events of the She-Wolves)