The Wondering Wolf

Yeah, I had checked the Citadel, as well. And the red colour could easily refer to a Lannister banner, so I don't see any reason to suspect Amory has personal arms.

Where does the information come from that Amory Lorch has personal arms depicting a black manticore on a red field? I could only find mention of a black manticore which fits in with the general Lorch coat of arms.

The article of Amory Lorch states about the last Lord Tarbeck incident: Assuming that Amory Lorch was at least fifteen years old at the time of the Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion (as he was already a knight), this would make him 37 years old or older during the Sack of King's Landing, and thus unlikely to be in prime condition to scale the walls of Maegor's Holdfast. Additionally, he would be 53 years old or older during the War of the Five Kings, and he is not mentioned to be an older man in his appearances in A Clash of Kings. This inconsistency may be why this incident was not included in the published Westerlands chapter of The World of Ice & Fire. I can see no reason why a forty year old professional fighter wouldn't be able to scale some walls. And while no-one says Amory looks a bit older in 299 AC, the opposite isn't stated neither. So I would remove this part from the article.

That's not entirely right, though. The wiki includes a lot of (more or less) well-founded assumptions and conclusions. Almost every time the history books mention a Lord X Y, the wiki makes an assumption by connecting the lordly title with the current seat of House Y. If we went with the 'only downright stated' approach, we would have to consider that the seat may have been a different one at that point or the lord may have been the head of a side branch of a different castle. Now we don't do that because it's only reasonable to assume the Lord Mallister mentioned during the reign of Viserys I was Lord of Seagard indeed. And this happens in a lot of other areas, too. So just because something isn't downright stated, doesn't mean it's not the reasonable conclusion. In this particular case some readers think the founding of those houses is associated with the Dawn Age, not because of the mention of the Golden Age, but because it's reasonable to assume that an event that is mentioned between two Dawn Age events (and the Age of Heroes being mentioned only after a cut in form ["hundreds of years later"] and content [the Lannisters coming up]) is supposed to have taken place in the Dawn Age, as well. To find a compromise we could leave the Dawn Age/Age of Heroes matter aside and only state something like "Maester Yandel connects the founding of House XY with a golden age of the First Men, who had come to the westerlands and settled down in the Dawn Age" (I guess someone can come up with some better wording).

Alright, maybe we should wait for other editors weighing in then.

All I can say is that in this chapter there is a clear cut in my opinion. We have Dawn Age (First Men arriving and settling down), unstated age (founding of all these house), Dawn Age (founding of the Casterlys), and then with a thematic cut (the Casterlys ruling for a hundred of years) Age of Heroes. Just because GRRM is not clear about ages elsewhere we shouldn't disregard distinctions when he makes them.

I strongly disagree with that. Yandel says men came to the westerlands in the Dawn Age and then elaborates on their encounters with the first races. And in this very context of the First Men settling in the westerlands he mentions the houses that were founded at that time. And after that he mentions the Casterlys who were founded in the Dawn Age. And only then comes the first mention of the Age of Heroes (there is a clear thematic cut, emphasized by the hundreds of years the Casterlys ruled). Assuming that events which are mentioned between two Dawn Age events could have taken place in the Age of Heroes, is rather far-fetched in my opinion.

I would read it differently. 'Other houses' not in opposition to the houses mentioned first, but in addition to them (it seems some house have a legendary founder figure, others have not). It's one paragraph and after that we learn about the Casterlys who were founded in the Dawn Age for sure. In my opinion it's clear, but if you disagree, just place the Hawthornes, Footes, Brooms, Plumms, Farmans, Greenfields, Reynes, and Westerlings in the Dawn Age and state for the others that it's not entirely clear.

I read it again, and I think it's quite clear that Yandel places the founding of these houses in the Dawn Age. He talks about the first houses that were established in the westerlands and calls this time Dawn Age. Conflicting sources on the founding of Winterfell shouldn't affect this particular case.

In this case the sons should be removed from the family tree on the wiki. @Ran Was Yandel's statement that Dalton Greyjoy conquered Kayce based on the mention of him having stolen the widow of the Knight of Kayce or was it simply an oversight? I seem to remember GRRM rushed through the Iron Islands chapters.

@Ran Is there any particular reason why the children of Antario Jast and Lanna Lannister were not included in the Worldbook's family tree at all (not even as 'issue')?

There is a paragraph that mentions a dozen houses, that were founded roughly at the same time, and then it says that the Casterlys were the most powerful house. In my opinion there is a clear connection. But even if you think it's not clear, you have to remove the Age of Heroes links in the wiki articles of the houses and the founders.

It seems to me the other houses and their legendary founders mentioned in this context have to be placed in the Aege of Dawn, as well.

The wiki places Corlos and the founding of House Casterly in the Age of Heroes, but the Worldbook states it was the Age of Dawn.

At this point any prisoners the riverlords had would have got free again, anyway, as we can see with Banefort and Jast. Sounds good. I think Tytos isn't even mentioned in the ACOK appendix, so getting him in there and stating he is held prisoner at the Twins would be a useful addition, too. Otherwise the information would disappear entirely.

Tytos Brax is taken captive in the Whispering Wood and becomes lord after his father Andros dies at Riverrun. The ASOS appendix says Tytos is held prisoner at the Twins. But Lord Brax is in KL after the Blackwater battle. This could be reconciled if we assume it was Flement and Sansa got it wrong. But even in this case the app would be wrong because the Hornvale entry states Tytos was in KL. These uncertainties should be depicted on the wiki.

Since we once had discussed if Prentys Tully had been the Lord Tully who fought against Prince Aegon in 43 AC, I just came across a sentence that heavily implies he wasn't. When Rogar wants to depose Jaehaerys, it says that Qarl Corbray had seen Dragons fight in the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye. This indicates Prentys wasn't there.

Maybe we can use this source to state that Duncan was already Lord Commander in 239 AC.

Ellard's brother was changed to Alaric's sons. Alaric agreed to hand over the New Gift in 58 AC. According to Gyldayn, he hesitated a bit, but then was absolutely fine with it and everything was great. However Yandel cites the letters Alaric's sons sent to the Citadel to prevent it from happening and mentions that subsequent Starks were bitter at Jaehaerys. He speculates this may have been one reason why Ellard supported Laenor in 101 (I think it's likely Ellard was a grandchild of Alaric).

It was Ellard Stark. There has never been any discrepancy regarding that. The thing you are referring to is about the Lord Stark who conceded the New Gift (Ellard in the old version, Alaric in the corrected one).

You are right, I've just remembered them being referred to as wards.

Benedict definitely has some warg vibes, so there could be some deeper connection to the First Men and it may indicate they did not follow the Seven back then. Perros Blackmont is a squire, though. I guess he could just be trained to become a warrior, but usually noble squires aim at knighthood.

The list included only houses with no associations to knighthood. Since the Yronwoods have several knights, I don't think they were considered a possibility. The Wyls could work though.

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.