Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Novels / Fantasy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Fantasy task force.
WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.

Colors of the Houses to use for the familytrees[edit]

Stark Coat of Arms.png
Three dragons.png
Arryn Coat of Arms.png
Escudo de Armas de la Casa de Lannister.png
Baratheon Coat of Arms.png
Coat of arms of house Greyjoy.png
Martell Coat of Arms.png
Tully Coat of Arms.png
Tyrell Coat of Arms.png

I hope everybody agrees. --W like wiki (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Catch-all page[edit]

I have created a page as a catch-all page for those characters from A Song of Ice and Fire that do not naturally belong to any of the great houses. The number of individual character pages for this series has exploded during the past few weeks, most of them leading to VfDs. (And rightly so, I think.) This page exists to encourage people to add "Houseless" characters to it, rather than creating new pages.

If and when there are obvious ways of splitting these individuals into separate pages (House Clegane, for example), then we can do that.

Until then, let's work on cleaning up this article, and the other character descriptions that currently reside under the main houses. Almost all of the related pages are in very, very poor shape and would benefit greatly from our attention. So, dear potential contributer: before you add a stub for Cotter Pyke or Chataya, please edit Robert Baratheon (on House Baratheon) first.

For more discussion, please read what I wrote on Talk: List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire.

I've made a proposal for all aSoIaF character organization that I'm starting soon, also in Talk: List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. NeoFreak 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Howland Reed and Sandor Clegane[edit]

While editing redirect links (great fun, that) for the House Stark page, I came across a stub on Howland Reed, which I've merged with this page, since a separate article doesn't seem warranted for a (so far) very minor character. Brendan 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've done the same for Sandor Clegane, who is more important but still doesn't deserve a separate page.

AFFC Spoilers[edit]

I've gone ahead and added some information on events in AFFC. While most of this is simply speculation, all of this speculation is so heavily accepted by the fan community and so strongly implied by the text that I think it's worth adding at this point. If R+L=J is worth mentioning in Wikipedia, then so is all the rest of this stuff, I think.

  • Do we really need spoiler warnings in each entry? Can't we just have one main one at the top of the page? Lisiate 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Fan speculation is Original Research (WP:OR and is not permissible for inclusion unless you can find a Reliable Source to attest to it. That includes R+L=J. Wellspring (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Brienne's Last Name[edit]

I realize this is nit-picky, but Brienne's family name is Tarth. However, like many other Westeros noble families, the Tarths' holding shares their name: Tarth. Thus, Brienne Tarth can also be called "Brienne of Tarth", since she does in fact come from a place called Tarth. Why people usually refer to her this way is never addressed. I kept the title of her section "Brienne of Tarth" since that's her most common style, but included mention of her full name.Captain Crawdad 07:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Vargo Hoat[edit]

I may be mistaken but shouldn't this say Lannister instead of Stark. "The Mummers slaughter the Stark bannermen and hand the castle over to Roose Bolton. "Sazabirules 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my brain fart. Captain Crawdad 17:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Alchemist[edit]

Spoiler warnings are all very well, but I am most upset that the premature revelation of the Alchemist's true identity has spoiled a plot twist that was coming up in a future book. Could we perhaps have a separate warning template for facts that have not yet been revealed in the published series – or leave them off the page altogether? 14:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the revelation of the Alchemist's new identity was right at the end of A Feast for Crows, so the article isn't spoiling anything that hasn't already been published. If the article started guessing what was going to happen next, it might be a future book spoiler, but as it is, it just notes details that some readers might have missed.Captain Crawdad 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Erk, no, I meant the revelation of his previous identity (i.e. that he is the same person as Jaqen). That wasn't revealed in the book – it's presumably something that's going to be revealed later on and is meant to be a surprise when it comes. 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I didn't consider that a spoiler, since the article only notes that they have the same face, which is verifiable in the currently published books. Though it has not been explicitly stated whether or not they are the same person (even though it's pretty clear), they are still associated with each other due to that shared face, so the Alchemist is relevant to Jaqen's character.Captain Crawdad 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, the damage is done now. It's still the sort of thing I would rather have been surprised by – the face description is there for clever readers to spot, but a lot of readers won't have spotted it. 12:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Ideas[edit]

I don't think either Nymeria or Ronnet Connington are important enough to be mentioned on this page. Also why is Arys on this page when none of the other Kingsguard besides The Hound are on it? If we don't remove his two sentences, we should at least expand it. What does everybody think of this Sazabirules 01:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the only reason they're here was because someone made separate pages for them and they got merged here. I've been tempted to remove them. I think Nymeria Sand should be in the Martell section, if anything, and the historical figure should be in Westeros, if anything.Captain Crawdad 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of characters are here just based on merges from individual pages, from a time when there were no other pages for non great house characters. I'd certainly move Nymeria, Connington, Oakheart, and maybe even a couple of others.
Another thing is that this page is getting a bit long; it's at 39 kilobytes. If there's any prospect of its getting significantly longer, we may want to consider various methods of dividing the content up- either moving some of the descriptions to other articles (Kingsguard? Night's Watch?) or dividing this into A-M and N-Z. But that's all a ways off in any case. Brendan Moody 19:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Barristan Selmy[edit]

I added something to the bit on Selmy- it said he was the last of the Kingsguard from before the Rebellion, but Jaime Lannister, though he betrayed his king, also remains from that Kingsguard.

True. I just changed that section again to remove both the assertion and the contradiction. The point of the sentence was just to note that he comes from the Kingsguard's older tradition. -Captain Crawdad 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Petyr Baelish[edit]

Just a minor note: it is not merely 'unlikely' that Petyr deflowered Catelyn, it is definitely false. In one of Catelyn's POV chapters in Storm of Swords, she distinctly remembers how she felt when she gave Ned her maidenhood (it had more of a sense of duty than one of passion, or something of that nature). Also in an earlier chapter she muses on how she 'gave her maidenhood to a stranger' out of duty to her father and her house. I've made the appropriate changes. --Alex

When did Petyr say that he was looking for the welfare of the realm? The one that did that is Varys. Is the article mistaken?

it was lys who gave her maidenhood petyr, the night catelyn refused his advances. petyr got drunk and was taken to bed, lys came along mounted him while he slept she was on the blob. this is all mentioned in a storm of swords, i think petyr thought it was cat — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The above is absolutely correct. There is no rock-hard evidence that Petyr genuinely believes that he spent that night with Cat instead of Lysa, but his calling Lysa "Cat" before he went back to sleep suggest that this is what occurred. There is no question that Catelyn was deflowered by Eddard Stark, but whether or not Peytr Baelish believes this is true is speculation at this point. I personally think that what we've been told point to Petyr believing his own lies through a combination of drunken recollection and wishful thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pages for minor houses?[edit]

This is probably rocking the boat too much, and I'm coming to the game kind of late here, but I think it would be a lot better if we created separate pages for minor houses rather than put all the characters who aren't members of the great houses here. For example, if I look up Samwell Tarly, I might also be interested in the details regarding his House, however slight they may be, such as what role his father played in the war (he fought for the Lannisters I believe, and there's even info on which battles he fought). Of course, characters who seem to be the only representatives of their houses should stay as they are. But some of the minor houses grouped here have almost as many representatives in the story as some of the major ones (for example House Arryn has very few). So I would propose that a separate list of known minor houses be made underneath the current list of major houses, with pages for any that has two or more prominent members. House Reed and House Clegane come to mind. Also, instead of putting Khal Drogo here, one could make a separate page for all Dothraki in the books, which would include both Drogo's and Dany's bloodriders, etc. Just throwing out some ideas.


Sandor Clegane redirects to this page, but there is no reference to him here. Should it instead redirect to Minor houses in A Song of Ice and Fire or someplace else? 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Gregor Clegane also redirects here.-Anonymous GRRM fan does Jorah Mormont - both the wiki entry (Jorah Mormont) and interior page-links (to a now-bogus anchor: Characters_from_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire#Jorah_Mormont) ...and Howland Reed, and (presumably) others. Looks like a lot of this resulted from a helpful cleanup in '05 (see above - #Howland_Reed_and_Sandor_Clegane) 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Syrio Forel[edit]

I just want to make clear my reasons for stating Syrio's death as possible as opposed to probable, as people keep changing it back. Probability, as I'm using the word here is subjective; GRRM has never stated that Syrio is probably dead (or if he has please provide a reference :)) and I don't find it at all unlikely that Syrio could take on Meryn Trant, even with a wooden sword. So if you have a reason to change it to probable please do tell. Pyreforge 01:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've come up with alternate wording that doesn't even mention death at all, since in the absence of hard evidence either way there's no particular reason to. Let me know if you object to it. Brendan Moody 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a better way to do it. Pyreforge 08:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
To survive and escape, Syrio only needed to outrun Trant. (Or he could have picked up one of the steel swords dropped by the knights he had felled.) If he could get Trant to pursue him for awhile, that would have bought time for Arya to escape. I think the bigger question is: If he was able to get away, why did he disappear from the story instead of tracking down Arya? SEppley (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Okay, I'm not at all sure about this thing here, BUT... I do recall that on the back of one of the books (and I know how unreliable they are), the word Necromancer was mentioned... Or something, anyways, to that effect. Pure speculation here, but could Qyburn be a necromancer, then? Point 1- He was banished from the Maester's sect, right? So clearly he was doing nasty stuff, possibly other than his torture experiments/fetishes. Point 2- He's a good healer, so he knows a lot about anatomy. This might be important. Point 3- The already mentioned stuff about the giant armor suit, probably for Gregor Clegane, who I THINK has expired. Point 4- Unbeatable champion, right? Well, a huge undead monster man that can shake off wounds like Dondarrion, or even like a Wight? Sounds pretty unbeatable.

I'm not going to edit anything personally, this is just a little thought about him. If anyone has any other bits of evidence or suggestive facts, you can post them if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ADWD Spoilers[edit]

Under Barristan the Bold there are spoilers from an ADWD preview chapter. I think they should be removed. Views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles ?[edit]

What is the difference between this article and the following one:

I am putting this question in both articles' talk pages. (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This one and Major houses in A Song of Ice and Fire lists important characters with a description. List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire is a list of every single character that is named in the books, with minimal description. Yoenit (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have officially proposed merging List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire here, although I really want to make the page a wp:DAB. My reasons for doing so are outlined here. Please provide comments/opinions on this requested merge. Yoenit (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This entire wiki is incredibly helpful. Thanks to anyone and everyone who contributed to it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonniemb (talkcontribs) 01:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


In the section on Varys, the character page states:

"...planting a tyrell coin which was found by Qyburn in the dungeon cell where Tyrion Lannister was being held before his escape."

Said coin was found in a (secret) storage area under the living quarters of the under-jailer Rugin. Can someone look into this and verify/edit the section? It is discussed in the 2nd Cersei chapter of A Feast For Crows. Tacticus (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the above to sight the exact place in the book where this matter is discussed, and I was in fact correct according to the book. However, it seems that the paragraph in question has since been removed from the Varys section, so perhaps this is irrelevant. The speculation that Varys may have planted it may be irrelevant in itself, so perhaps this is the best solution, although if the note should be there, it should at least be made correct. (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Entirely too much information/speculation/cruft[edit]

I've recently had to reinstate a removal of information in the article, wherein Joffrey/Cersei was noted as being the party guilty of hiring the assassin to kill Bran. Stepping aside from the actual text of the book (a matter I'll address in a moment), we need secondary sources - reliable sources, and not "unofficial" blogs and wikis and the like - to make statements like that in the first place. One of the editors pointed out that in the summary of the third book, written by the invisible staff at the unofficial wiki-ish blog, "Tower of the Hand" notes that the accusation is leveled at Joffrey. Even if we could use the source (which we cannot, as it is itself completely unusable as a source, having no editorial oversight, etc.), this would be an inaccurate statement. From the aforementioned source:

"Tyrion looks on as the High Septon marries Joffrey and Margaery. He reflects on the attempt on Bran's life and how Joffrey had to be the one to order the killing. He still does not know why, but figures it was probably to impress Robert.1"

So Tyrion guesses that Joffrey might have done it, but at no point states that Joffrey actually did do it. Entirely different animals altogether.
We need unimpeachable sources for any evaluative statements, not Sherlocking as to the fates, motivations or sexual mores of the different characters. I am strongly inclined to go through this article with a hatchet, cutting pout everything missing explicit sourcing for its evaluative statements. I am inclined to wait, but I won't be waiting long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article needs a hatchet to remove cruft and speculation, but challenging this little tidbit is ridiculous. I suggest you read the book in question, which you obviously haven't done. Yoenit (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, I have read all of the books in the series to date, and I think it is clear that while Tyrion surmised that Joffrey had been the culprit, it has little more than that. With Martin being less than explicit (unlike his description of Gregor Clegane killing Oberon Martell, for instance, or how Arianne Martell had been secretly betrothed to Viserys Targaryen), we cannot presume to fill in the blanks. Were we to have explicit commentary via a cited, reliable source, we'd be copacetic. Without it, we are out of luck. We cannot synthesize any of the plot ourselves. the readers do not come to us for our pearls of wisdom and insight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Really, than you should know Jaime reaches the same conclusion independently and discusses it with Cersei. I decided to just quote the relevant sections from A Storm of Swords to help you remember. Now, I challenge whether King Robert died, as we did not see it happen first hand. Oh, and Loras Tyrell getting hit with burning oil is obviously speculation as well, we only have second hand accounts of that. Yoenit (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Really, than you should know Jaime reaches the same conclusion independently and discusses it with Cersei. I decided to just quote the relevant sections from A Storm of Swords to help you remember. Now, I challenge whether King Robert died, as we did not see it happen first hand. Oh, and Loras Tyrell getting hit with burning oil is obviously speculation as well, we only have second hand accounts of that. Yoenit (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I was aware of the dialogue, and we could get into minutiae, but that would swiftly turn into a pissing contest, Yoenit - solving nothing. The main point is that a few of the characters think he did it. It is not the same thing as him actually having done it. Two separate animals. Let's focus instead on finding explicit citations that do all the dot-connecting that we as Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do. If it is indeed as important as all that, then I am sure there must be scads of information about it somewhere where explicit citation can be found. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, have fun looking for it. This is a major plot spoiler and no book reviewer would be stupid enough to include it in his review, nor would the author reveal it in an interview. As a solution I would be willing to accept something along the lines of "Tyrion and Jaime deducted independently in ASOS that Joffrey must have been responsible for the assasination attempt". Yoenit (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is no hurry to include it - we are not a 'one-stop shop' for all things Game of Thrones; there are numerous wikis and fansites out there that fill that capacity. I would suggest we say nothing as to the matter until someone notable enough turns their attention to it. "Deducted independently" and "must have been" suggests facts not in evendence (and even if it did, we are not allowed to Sherlock the answer for ourselves), and Martin has made no such explicit claim as to that fact. There is no hurry to include it. Things just happen in Martin novels, or are so 'butterfly flapping it's wings' tertiarily connected that it might as well be unconnected. I don't think we need it, and stating it gives undue weight to the conspiracy that it is important. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I had not considered leaving it out entirely, excellent solution. Yoenit (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I am glad we found some middle ground, Yoenit. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

mormonts related[edit]

Lord Mormont is the father of Jorah Mormont, I think the pages should mention that. Patbahn (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Separate info for books and tv-series, please![edit]

Currently, this page does not acknowledge the existence of the separate character versions of the HBO series.

We need a separate copy of this page; for characters as depicted on screen as opposed to the books.

This will allow:

  • character entries that aren't in the books but are in the TV series
  • character details on things done differently in the books and series
  • character info that is limited to what's shown on TV (not utterly spoiling future seasons with info from books) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


Okay, so I'm done writing a merger draft between this page and Major houses in A Song of Ice and Fire. I haven't referenced it, and it still needs production and reception. I'll move it to mainspace anyway. I've made new heading at the project talk page for discussion. Please make comments there! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


One of the most important facets of houses in the genre is the heraldry and "words" of each house. So how would people feel about adding this table at the top (or bottom) of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Sephalon1 (talkcontribs)

House Heraldry Colors Words
Arryn Falcon White on light blue "As High as Honor"
Baratheon/Storm's End Stag Black on gold "Ours is the Fury"
Baratheon/King's Landing Stag and lion combatant Black on gold/gold on red "Ours is the Fury"
Baratheon/Dragonstone Stag on Burning Heart Orange on red "Ours is the Fury"
Bolton Flayed man Red on pink "Our Blades are Sharp"
Frey Twin towers Blue on silver (unknown)
Greyjoy Kraken Gold on black "We Do Not Sow"
Lannister Lion Gold on Red "Hear Me Roar!"
Martell Spear and Sun Magenta on orange "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken"
Stark Dire Wolf Black on silver "Winter is Coming"
Targaryen Dragon Red on black "Fire and Blood"
Tully Trout Gray on red and blue waves "Family, Duty, Honor"
Tyrell Golden Rose Gold on dark green "Growing Strong"

I like this idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Lannister words are "Hear me roar" not "A lannister always pays his debts". That you made this mistake is a nice example why I oppose such a table: With the exception of the Stark words (and possibly greyjoy), the house words are trivia. I have no problem with them being named in the descriptions of the different houses in this article, but putting them in a separate table would not improve the article in my opinion. For heraldy it would be nice if we could get some better and uniform images, but again I see no point in putting it a table. Yoenit (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a section on heraldry if and only if there was also some real-world information. I don't know if there are books out there talking of it, but below is everything I've found in GRRM interviews, and it's rather sparse.

  • GRMM: “I think excluding sex is excluding a very important part of human nature. Critics will talk about whether it’s gratuitous sex. I’ve balked at that word gratuitous. What does that mean? What is gratuitous feasting and gratuitous heraldry and gratuitous descriptions of the clothes that people wear? I reject all of that.”[1]
  • GRRM: The medieval setting has been the traditional background for epic Fantasy, even before Tolkien, and there are good reasons for that tradition. The sword has a romance to it that pistols and cannon lack, a powerful symbolic value that touches us on some primal level. Also, the contrasts so apparent in the Middle Ages are very striking -- the ideal of chivalry existed cheek by jowl with the awful brutality of war, great castles loomed over miserable hovels, serfs and princes rode the same roads, and the colorful pageantry of tournaments rose out of a brown and grey world of dung, dirt, and plague. The dramatic possibilities are so rich. Besides, I like the heraldry. [2]
  • Heraldry certainly seems to be a personal obsession. -- Martin: Ah, yeah, I have to admit I enjoy the heraldry a lot. There's a wonderful Web site which has been done by two fans of mine from Sweden, the Westeros Web site, which includes pages and pages of heraldry of all the houses of the Seven Kingdoms. Not just the major houses, but some of the lesser, minor houses, other knights and minor lordlings as well. I've helped work with the fans who are doing that--they send me the shields for approval, and I send them suggestions. We have something like 400 shields up there now. It's been a real kick to do that.[3]

sgeureka tc 09:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yoenit. Only Stark's and Targaryen's are definitely important. Where exactly would the table go anyway? In it's own section in the beginning. There isn't much of a point in that. I don't agree with the idea. I say it's fine the way it is: words and coat of arms in the section lead of the houses. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The heraldry is a very significant component of the HBO adaptation, and it does play a major role in the books as the POV characters will refer to visuals such as "the bleeding man of Bolton." I would suggest, however, that the table be placed in an article on "Houses and Families in A Song of Ice and Fire" rather than this article, which is purportedly based on individuals. Dkendr (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed the bottom of the table. I don't think a separate article for the houses is necessary. Just because the article is titled characters doesn't mean groups of people or families in general cannot be discussed. It is actually best that the families be covered here instead of on a separate article because splitting them across two articles makes things unnecessarily difficult. It is easiest for readers if all of the families and groups were covered here. I still believe a table is unnecessary because such information would be covered in paragraphs about the houses. If the family does't appear on this list, there's always A Wiki of Ice and Fire, which covers everything beautifully. In addition, some of the information that is now on the table is incorrect. House Stark is silver on white. The Martells is red on orange. Tully is silver on red and blue, but that's nitpicking on my part. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
And in my understanding, the Houses and Families in A Song of Ice and Fire would describe the houses and families and this would cover the individual characters in those families? I believe it's best to describe the families and houses in lead sections, like I attempted to do here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As to Yoenit's comment about "better and more uniform images", I've created simpler coats of arms and placed them on the page. I doubt they're any better, but at least they're a matching set. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mendoza, Ralph (August 2011). "Brutal grace: 'Game of Thrones' under a spoiler-free microscope". Retrieved 2011-02-02.  Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help);
  2. ^ Gevers, Nick (December 2000). "Sunsets of High Renown – An Interview with George R. R. Martin". Archived from the original on April 4, 2012. Retrieved January 21, 2012.  (Interview approved by GRRM.)
  3. ^ Robinson, Tasha (December 11, 2000). "Interview: George R.R. Martin continues to sing a magical tale of ice and fire". Science Fiction Weekly ( 6, No. 50 (190). Archived from the original on June 27, 2001. Retrieved February 2, 2012. 

First Paragraph Spoilers and/or Mistake[edit]

I think there may be a spoiler or mistake in the introductory paragraph to the article: 'Daenerys Targaryen, the exiled daughter and only remaining heir of a king murdered fifteen years earlier in a rebellion'. Surely this is wrong? What about her brother Viserys Targaryen? I'm not sure who is older, but the rest of the book, so far, has only ever suggested that males are heirs to dynasties, and thus Viserys is the immediate heir. Or has this given away that she out lives him? (Or that he is not really the deposed-king's son?)

Also, 'and the ambition of Daenerys Targaryen ... to return to Westeros with her fire-breathing dragons and claim her rightful throne' is a spoiler. So far in, in book one, everyone believes dragons are extinct three hundred year hence. This gives away that Daenerys uses dragons later in the story.

(I suppose, strictly, 'dynastic war' is a spoiler, though this was so obviously going to be a major part of the story, I don't think it matters.) (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really realized that ws spoiler-ish before now. But spoilers or no, Wikipedia doesn't censor spoilers. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Catelyn Stark[edit]

My changes to Catelyn Stark's entry on 22/06/12 were possibly not in the right tone, but I don't see what is subjective about Catelyn's counsel bringing down house Stark. If anything, it should be added that her folly proved the undoing of house Tully too, not to mention Winterfell and a few bannermen of the Starks, notably the Umbers and the Karstarks. And that's not counting all the blood shed because of her coming up with bright idea after bright idea: take the Imp prisonner, release the Kingslayer, advice her son to ask for bread and salt as insurance against treason...

That woman is the biggest idiot in all of Westeros (and that's saying something!). "a honourable and strong woman" my foot. In "A Storm of Swords" Jon Snow notes how Stannis reminds him of her, "iron, but brittle" and he's right on that. She goes crazy at that bloody wedding. Where's the strength in that? And just where does she show even a shred of honour?

I am removing the bit about Catelyn Stark being honourable and strong, it's as subjective as anything I may have written. Stassa (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Although taking Tyrion hostage was really stupid, and although she started the War of the Five Kings, she didn't singlehandedly bring the downfalls of the Starks, Winterfell, the Tullys, the Karstarks, the Umbers, etc. The downfall of the Starks can't be attributed to any one character. You can blame Catelyn for starting the war. Or Ned for giving Cersei the chance to run away in exile. Or Joffrey for ordering Ned beheaded. Or Edmure for marching against Tywin when he was ordered not to. Or Robb and Jeyne for getting married. Or the Freys for breaking ancient custom. Or Roose and Tywin for helping plan the Red Wedding. Or whoever sent that assassin after Bran. Or Jaime for pushing Bran out the window in the first place or for having sex with Cersei instead of going hunting. It wasn't actually Catelyn's counsel that did it. Releasing Jaime was a silly idea, though it did have basis. Saying it caused a lot of bloodshed isn't fair as it didn't really cause too much, just his cousin, some guys sent after them, and a bunch of the Bloody Mummers. But that's a little compared to everything else. Though it should be mentioned that other characters believed it was stupid idea. Asking for the bread and water and using it as a shield from harm was actually smart. The guest right custom states that if a host provides guests with food and water, the host must protect the guests from harm as long as they stay. The Red Wedding was unprecedented. No host has ever broken guest right before, and it is considered an abomination and a curse to do so. Other counsel includes telling Robb to appoint Roose as head of infantry, which wins them many battles though when Roose betrays them it became a less than fantastic idea. But Roose had no reason to betray Robb until Robb broke the marriage pact. It isn't necessarily her fault that when she gives advice and someone follows it, a third party comes along and does something totally unpredictable and unforeseeable and mucks up her good counsel.
As for being a strong woman, you completely ignore everything about her unless she was capturing Tyrion, releasing Jaime, and killing Aegon and tearing herself apart at the end of the Red Wedding. She takes the death of her husband, the deaths of her two youngest children, the possible deaths of her daughters, and the death of her father better than any character. Theon's mother goes through something similar (the deaths of her two oldest sons and the effective captivity of her youngest child) and it crushes her. She remains in her tower, looking wistfully off into the distance and asking for Theon whenever someone visits. Catelyn, on the other hand, sits up and continues to function. This is emphasized throughout the first half of A Storm of Swords (I can't remember A Clash of Kings that well). However, I agree that she is prone to lapses of desperation and extremely poor judgement -- capturing Tyrion, releasing Jaime, killing Aegon Frey. Her going crazy at the end happens after she loses everything and bottled up all of her grief for two and a half books. When you lose everything, what's the point in being strong? In addition, women aren't exactly first class citizens in Westeros. It takes some strength for Catelyn to accept her role in society and do the best she can with it. She could have easily sat back and became like Sansa (throughout A Clash of Kings, helpless), or like Daenerys for the few three of her POV chapters (before she became the strong, fierce khaleesi), or became like Theon's mother.
But up until then, her counsel is sound. She is the one who arranges Robb's betrothal in the first place so they can cross the river. She is the one who decided that the Baratheon brothers would make good allies (if they stopped fighting each other long enough). Asking for the bread and water was legitimately good advice. It should have protected them, but the Freys were willing to risk a curse and ostracism for the sake of revenging themselves. She proves that she is a strong woman by the way she handles the continuous stream of deaths she is faced with.
As for honorable. Holding duty over desire is honorable. Instead of sitting in Winterfell and allowing Ned to stay home as she wanted, she felt that it was necessary that Ned be Hand, Sansa marry the Prince, and Arya go to court. When Ned is killed, she would have rather gone home and mourned, but it was her duty to stand by Robb. When she foolishly captured Tyrion, she did so for the honor of her family (but more so for the love of her children). Though I do concede that when it really comes down to it, she follows her heart instead of her head and submits to desire rather than duty and honor. Though I feel she has proven she has a shred of honor, I wouldn't object to the word being removed from her description.
For the quote, "iron, but brittle." It is explained as "Stannis is pure iron, black and hard and strong, but brittle, the way iron gets. He'll break before he bends." (Chapter 76, Jon XI). When he calls Catelyn iron but brittle, he is applying the same description, hard and strong, but will break rather than bend to another.
In short, I agree it should be noted that capturing Tyrion and releasing Jaime were lacking in judgement and foresight, though releasing Jaime could have gone somewhere if Tyrion was still hand and Sansa was still in King's Landing. But she has proven herself to be strong. In my opinion, she has proven herself, but I can't come up with much textual basis. Her counsel is sound, she just didn't foresee others actions. And the Red Wedding just wasn't foreseeable. So she isn't stupid by believing bread and water will protect them.
And if Catelyn's the biggest idiot in Westeros for capturing Tyrion and releasing Jaime, then Ned's giving her a run for her money by giving Cersei the chance to escape. And Robb's in the running because he decided to marry Jeyne. I'd say Viserys is king for drawing a sword in Vaes Dothrak and threatening to kill Daenerys. But then he wasn't on Westeros when that happened.
I apologize if the above is repetitive and unorganized. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ned= honorable fool, and so is Robb. But what brings the downfall of her house is the Red Wedding, and that happens because they no longer have Tywin's heir as a hostage, so Tywin had nothing to fear. And Bolton's treason was probably influenced by this too, they had just lost their biggest asset. Capturing Tyrion is foolish because she doesn't warn Ned, or prepares to the obvious war that would be the consequence. In fact were she any smart she should just have hired an assassin to take the dwarf's head, since his sister was the queen. And her actions weren't honorably either, she just reacted emotionally(and foolishly). What was the honor of letting Jaime escape? She by all definitions became a traitor, and acted on her interest alone, without thinking on her duties with her house and her vassals. So strong and honorable? no way, "emotional and poor judgment".

These accusations are poor readings of the text and the character. She is honorable and strong. She knows the politics of the world and cares deeply about her family. The idea that she caused the war of the five kings and the Red Wedding are asinine and unfounded. The War of Five Kings was inevitable. Before the story starts Stannis knows about the incest as does Varys and Littlefinger (who were working to pit Stark and Lannister against each other by unseen manipulation.) The War for the throne had its beginnings in Jaime and Cersie's incest and was a future reality when Jon Arryn and Stannis found out about it. Catelyn's arresting of Tyrion did not cause it; it only made things worse because she was working with false information. Refer to this thread about it. It's much more in-depth than anything on here and shows that her actions were wise in how she arrested him, but only in hindsight is it a mistake. The Red Wedding was plotted out by Tywin, Roose, and the Freys and not because Jaime was released. It was a mix of Robb marrying Jeyne, Roose switching sides because of the Sack of Winterfell, and Jeyne's parents begin Lannister supporters. In aGoT Tyrion finds out that Tywin treats Jaime as already dead, and that was in the hands of the Northerners as a hostage. He had even less chance of survival in the war-torn riverlands, as evidenced by his later mutilation. Catelyn releasing Jaime had zero affect on whether the Red Wedding would happen or not. Jelmazmo (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lord Tywin Lanister[edit]

I want to add to this article that Martin based Lord Tywin's character on that of Joseph Stalin. Not simply because the both share a ruthlessness to their enemies (Both real and not real) but both lost their sense of compassion and love after the death of their wife at a young age. If I can find some evidence that Martin did base Lord Tywin on the infamous dictator, I will add it. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

By evidence, I do hope you mean from the horse's mouth. Just a reminder ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Size split?[edit]

Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split out one article per house. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like splitting by house. We had house articles a couple years ago, but it was a total cruftfest (example). I agree this list is very long right now, but this is a result of a merge with Major houses in A Song of Ice and Fire that User:TenTonParasol did last summer. Unfortunately the article length seems to be growing steadily since that merge, while the intention was to decrease its overall size. As an alternative I would propose splitting off character articles for the main characters. Most of the viewpoint characters easily satisfy notability criteria for such standalone articles. Yoenit (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Reply - Can you please give me a detailed list of which characters should have their own articles?--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The question is whether we can write enough about a character to justify a separate article. I would argue all of the major viewpoint (>10 chapters) characters satisfy that criteria, as well as several others that play a major role in the TV series. So in my opinion articles could at least be split off for: Tyrion, Jon, Dany, Arya, Catalyn, Ned, Jaime, Cersei, Sansa, Bran, Theon, Davos, Petyr, Tywin, Robb, Joffrey, Stannis, Bron, Varys and Drogo. Yoenit (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much what Yoenit said. But I'd start off with the four characters who can be sourced to be fan favorites (Jon, Tyrion, Arya, Dany), and then only split off more when those stand-alone character articles have reached a decent shape (1-3 paragraphs of creation/influence/reception). Articles for other characters can be created if someone is dedicated to developing that particular article. That approach encourages the most quality without giving in to too much fancruft. – sgeureka tc 09:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Do both. Split the article by houses, and within each house cover the lesser characters but give the major ones a brief description with a link to an article of their own. This article is way too long already. Trying to cover all the characters in A Song of Ice and Fire in one article is insane. Dodiad (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly something needs to be done. I must say that I fear that splitting of characters is likely to cause an even bigger cruftfest than splitting by house, but we shall give it a try. I have tagged the 4 sections given by Sgeureka above and no sooner than the 18th of October 2013 I will split off those sections. If that does not bring the article down to size (and I strongly suspect it won't) then I will tag the other sections given by Yoenit above and wait another 2 weeks. Op47 (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
As I feared, that didn't do it. Op47 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Clearly something needs to be done. I am going to suggest split by house. See RfC below. Op47 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does the article say Jon Snow is Ned Stark's son?[edit]

I think the article should not claim Jon Snow is the son of Eddard "Ned" Stark. Although many characters in the books believe it, the facts in the (first five) books don't confirm it. The evidence for it is very weak: 14 years before the start of book one, Ned brought baby Jon to Winterfell and let it be known--or allowed people to jump to the conclusion--that Jon was his son, and has allowed people to believe it ever since. Many clues suggest Jon's parents were Ned's sister Lyanna and Rhaegar Targaryen. Shortly before Ned brought baby Jon to Winterfell, he promised to honor the dying wish of Lyanna, who had been with Rhaegar nine months before and isolated in Rhaegar's "tower of joy" after that. Lyanna's wish hasn't been disclosed (through the first five books) to the readers but if Jon really was her child by Rhaegar, Jon would have been in mortal danger if Robert Baratheon had learned of it, and thus Lyanna would have had reason to beg Ned to keep her baby's parentage secret from Robert. One thing we know about Lyanna's wish comes from Ned's thoughts during his conversation with Cat and Littlefinger; he recognized a similarity between Lyanna's pleading and his daughter Sansa's pleading to Ned not to allow the execution of her pet direwolf at King Robert's command: "he remembered [...] Robert’s talk of sending hired knives after the Targaryen princess. He remembered Rhaegar’s infant son, the red ruin of his skull, and the way the king had turned away, as he had turned away in Darry’s audience hall not so long ago. He could still hear Sansa pleading, as Lyanna had pleaded once."

The article contains only one reference to the theory that Lyanna and Rhaegar were Jon's parents. If you google 'Jon Snow Lyanna Rhaegar' you'll find several blogs that discuss it in depth. Or search for "Lyanna" in the ebook of book one and you can quickly put together the clues.

Nowhere in the books (as far as I know) does Ned explicitly say or think that Jon is his son. Ned apparently learned long ago that he doesn't need to call Jon his son to get people to believe Jon is his son; he can refer to Jon honestly using ambiguous terms like "my blood" that people will misinterpret. (In the tv series, Ned uses a similar ambiguity the last time he speaks to Jon; he says "you are a Stark" and "you have my blood" but does not say "you are my son.") And when Ned lists his children in his thoughts, he omits Jon.

Even if Jon is Ned's son, the evidence for it is not strong enough for the article to claim it is so. (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is the appendices refer to Jon Snow as "his [Ned's] bastard son," (A Game of Thrones), "his [Robb's] half-brother," (A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, both A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons add the word bastard). Within the story itself, it is accepted as fact. And until otherwise stated, he is Ned's son. And though I know all the evidence for R+L=J, putting together the clues myself is considered original research (which isn't allowed), and many of those blogs are not reliable sources. The one ref cited is the only reliable one we've come across so far. In short, as long as the books define him as Ned's bastard child or Robb's half-brother, the article will do so also. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The first appendix is ambiguous: if Ned adopted the bastard son of Lyanna & Rhaegar then Jon could be described as "Ned's bastard son." The story is filled with characters who believe things that are wrong, so it should be irrelevant that the characters accept as fact that Jon is Ned's bastard, and GRRM has given careful readers ample reasons to doubt it. I agree that the evidence that Jon is R+L's son is original research and I agree that the article should not be edited to claim Jon is R+L's son, but it does not follow that the article should naively claim Jon is Ned's son. Clearly Lyanna had a baby shortly before she died, and Occam's Razor suggests Jon was that baby, but there are other possibilities: it could have been stillborn (or murdered) or Ned could have found another home for it. The article should avoid making any claims about the identity of either of Jon's parents, since GRRM appears to want careful readers to have doubts about both parents. SEppley (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
How about "assumed bastard son"? Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

Several characters need their own page[edit]

After reading the page "List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters", I feel that there is way too much information and that the article is cluttered. I feel that since there is so much information, that many of the prominent characters (Cersei Lannister, Jon Snow, Tyrion, etc.) need to be redirected to their own wikipedia page.

Is it possible to do this? JDJ39 (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It definitely is. Several characters--Ned, Cersei, Tyrion, Sansa, Daenerys, Jaime, Arya, Catelyn, etc.--have more than enough notability for their own articles. The only thing is that nobody's actually created a proper page. And I agree about the clutter, granted I haven't actually been paying attention to anything going on around here in months. I mean, I have a lot of articles and interviews bookmarked so I could always add that to anything that's created. But I personally lack the motivation to draft and create character articles. In short, yeah. it's totally possible. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if all of the mentioned characters have enough notability, but Ned and Tyrion may very well do. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 06:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

All major characters (and some minor ones) from The Wire have their own dedicated pages. Indeed, Game of Thrones seems one of the few major shows of the past ten years where character do not have their own specific pages, despite the immense popularity of the show, and the characters' contribution to general society, ie, Daenerys and cosplaying and so on. Definitely needs to happen, sooner rather than later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The weather's quite good in the UK right now, and after a cold start to the year people will be spending their time outdoors. The edits will probably pick up again in the autumn (winter is coming..where have I heard that before)? Britmax (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

On Joffrey's death[edit]

Hi. Congratulations on the excellent article, but could someone give a reference to justify that "Olenna Redwyne and Petyr Baelish" were the ones responsible for Joffrey's death? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Separate page for point of view characters[edit]

I light of the ever increasing popularity of the series I think there is a case for each of the point of view characters (with the exception of those that only appear in prologues or epilogues) to have there own separate page. This current page is getting very long and in trying to keep it at an manageable size it appears that some information on characters in particular their development isn't being recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracland (talkcontribs) 20:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Family tree removed[edit]

I have removed an extremely large family tree giving the ancestry of House Targaryen from this article. It goes into too much detail as it is; that kind of excessive detail is trivia only of interest to fans, and so belongs on a fansite rather than Wikipedia. (Few, if any real people have that much information about their ancestry on Wikipedia, let alone fictional characters.) Robofish (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree, but people get obsessed over this kind of stuff. The person who reverted you rightly pointed out that wikipedia has [[|List of family trees|a lot of other (fictional) family trees]], contrary to what you are saying. An important difference however is that those trees are either in a dedicated article or at the bottom of the page. In this case the three is right in the middle of the page. In addition it way too wide, so it doesn't fit properly on my screen. I have replaced it with the thumbnail pic of the image version again, which was the status quo. Yoenit (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Better yet: anyone who uses that as an excuse should be pointed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 17:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that would have been a bad idea, because Robofish was the person to start with a wp:OTHERSTUFF argument and the IP editor was just responding. It would have come across as very hostile and arbitrary. Yoenit (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No Benjen Stark?[edit]

I am very surprised that Benjen Stark is not included in this page. His long-dead sister Lyanna (though potentially more integral to the plot) is included. He is not even mentioned in the background on House Stark, Ned, Jon or Lyanna's sections. He could also be included in the 'Night's Watch' section, as he was the lead ranger until his disappearance. Thoughts please? Mountaincirque (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

He appeared briefly in, what, two chapters and then disappears with no active search for him going on. Unless he reappears in future novels, he has no influence on the narrative and his disappearance is only of importance for hard-core fans. Therefore, and also for for brevity's sake, he should be left off the page or be mentioned in no more than a subordinate clause in Jon's section. – sgeureka tc 10:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Coats of Arms[edit]

Why are we using these coats of arms? I mean, they look very pretty, but in several cases they aren't accurate. House Arryn's moon and falcon are misshaped, Stannis's personal coat of arms only has the head of the crowned stag inside the heart, House Greygoy's Kraken is upside down and misshaped, the spear in the Martel banner is piercing the sun in the wrong direction, and the sun itself is supposed to have a face and the golden rose of House Tyrell is depicted with five petals when it should have four. These are just the details I notice from a quick flip-through of the Appendix of A Storm of Swords (which was the only book in arms reach).

I know that these are nitpicky details, but why use these original and inaccurate fan drawings when it would be perfectly acceptable to use the versions that Martin provided for us in his own appendices? They may be black and white, but they are also most certainly accurate. These ones look prettier, but using them... well, I guess I can't call them original research, but they are the original work of a wikipedian, rather than that of the original illustrator, Virginia Norrey.

Could we not use the images from the book, if we scanned them? Seems like fair use to me. Or, if color images are absolutely necessary, perhaps we could get permission to use the images available at The Citadel, such as:


Just so.

Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit, when I made them I was trying to make it as close as I could to the descriptions in the novels (I didn't have a copy of the appendix in reach at the time) with stuff from the Commons, so yeah they're kind of, really inaccurate. (Targaryen and Greyjoy were there when I got here, so I didn't make those.) But I believe that it would be easier to recreate rather than go through the Fair Use. I believe an original work is okay in lieu of the illustrator. If it really comes down to it, I could try to make accurate ones; I'd like to think I'm not as limited in my ability as I was a year ago. And after a quick look, even the Citadel doesn't have all of them, but I might've missed. Either way, if we could get a pass on Norey's colored (I personally prefer color, it's more illustrative IMO) then by all means. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
No to fair-use images. In the current situation, I must admit that I prefer to have slightly wrong arms than none at all, but I welcome attempts to update/replace them. – sgeureka tc 11:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll see if I can see to updating them. I'm also not very fond of the banner on the bottom (Well, I'm the one that put them there so I'm to blame), so I might remove them as I go along. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Targaryen family tree[edit]

I know lineage is a big deal within the series, but the Targ family tree, now that image versions have fallen out of style, takes up a huge amount of space on the page and is seriously messing with the format, for me on Chrome on a Mac at least. So for now, I commented it out. I know it's fantastic to have, but it is really necessary? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a sucker for uniformity, so the sole big Targ family had always stuck out to me in a bad way. The intro to the Targ section already says the important things. For the interested reader, I would either put the family into a collapsed template, or link to the old image in a sentence like this. IMO, the family tree is no more necessary for the list overview than for any other family (although unfortunately, the section importance of Aegon V is currently made clear via ToD&E only very late in his section). – sgeureka tc 11:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This is unwieldy![edit]

A few points:

  • This should be broken up into separate pages for each family. It's crazy to have one page for dozens of characters.
  • It would really help new viewers if there was a photo of every actor next to the character they play.
  • For goodness sake, please get a better photo of poor Sean Bean...the one that's used is just horrible! (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is far too long. Perhaps some major characters could have their own article? Or, perhaps family articles? Targaryen family, for example? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested several times. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire. We are all waiting for someone to finally be bold go ahead with it. - FakirNL (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as photos/images, as stated at the top of the page, this article is about the novels, so if actor photos are used at all, they should only be ones taken of actors in character (if such photos can legally be used on wikipedia, which I doubt). (Out-of-character actor photos might, however, be considered acceptable in the list of GoT TV adaptation characters.) --TyrS 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Olenna Tyrell[edit]

Is there any reason why Olenna Tyrell is referred to by her maiden whereas for all the others the married name is used? As far as I can recall this is not a precedent set in the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC Split by house[edit]

Closing per a WP:ANRFC requests.
The result of the discussion is no consensus. The number of the !votes are even, and they essentially boil down to "it needs a split" and "there is no reason to split". Armbrust The Homunculus 10:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article be split by house? Op47 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Please only "support" or "oppose" in this section. Any discussion to go in the threaded discussion section below. (see wp:rfc)

  • Suggest not splitting I see no reasons or method for doing so. BTW the "vote only in this section" note above is not proper. Rationales are an important part of weighing in. Longer threaded discussions are what can be separated. Finally, IMO the word "list" should be taken out of the title. This is an article on the characters, not a list of them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose splitting I do not see any reason to split here. It seems most readable like this. --Precision123 (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

It seems clear that this page needs to be split. I do not favor the by character method, because the line between major and minor characters is not always a clear one. There are characters who never have a POV chapter, but who have a significant and inseparable effect on the story (Joffrey, for example). I also dislike the character based version, because you end up with character summaries in one place, and long character descriptions in another. Those tend to drift apart, and are sometimes contradictory. I believe I ran into that very thing back when we had character articles associated here. I would much prefer to split the article by house. Tacticus (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This was first proposed by Jax0677 who quoted from WP:length. The readable prose size of this article is 195k and WP:Length provides that articles > 100k should almost certainly be divided. My view on that is that there must either be very special circumstances, or another approach to getting the article under 100k should be tried. I have already tried splitting off the very largest sections and this had very little impact on the article size. Unless the size of the article can be reduced by half (at least) then I do not see how we can get to a sensible size other than by splitting the article. Op47 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"This article is about the novels."[edit]

Ok - then why are all those pictures of the TV show actors on there? They really have no business there, as hardly any of them conform in any way to the physical descriptions and ages of their respective characters in the novels. Amoka's pictures, tho not perfect, are least based on the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. There's plenty of free fan art available here and at wiki's like Westeros's. I don't have a problem with also providing images of the actors, but they should at least somewhat resemble the characters: i.e., the Rob Baratheon, Sansa, and Bran pics are fine; Viserys's needs to be replaced with something displaying his off-color hair less prominently; and the Tully girls Catelyn and Lysa's are godawful and need to be removed entirely. (My 2c; 'll wait for consensus since I imagine this is an important page for the fandom.) — LlywelynII 05:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree very much. Using obviously out-of-character photos of actors to supposedly illustrate these characters!? Not too bright.--TyrS 13:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just removed all the out-of-character actor images. Obviously the article needs more images, but those were completely inappropriate, particularly since there's a separate article for the tv series. I suspect that people editing this page with material from the tv series have simply not noticed that this is the one about the novels.--TyrS 06:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding TyrS's removal of the images of the actors, it is acceptable (and often practiced) to use images of actors to illustrate not only what the characters look like but what the actors look like, especially since these images are WP:Free images as opposed to WP:Fair-use images (which does not allow for providing an image of every character in an article, unless the illustrations satisfy the fair-use criteria). Take Bignole's work on the WP:Good article Smallville into consideration, for example. In the case of the List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters article, it noted in the captions who portrays what character, which makes it hardly off-topic or silly to include the images. But, for a character article, when it comes to an infobox image or a non-infobox lead image (which are both types of images placed in the WP:Lead), I prefer that we use an image of the character (meaning an in-character image instead of an image of the actor) since the article is primarily about the character. It's similar to what I stated here to Arre 9 at the Nick and Sharon article. And as can be seen here, Arre 9 soon added an image focusing on the characters more so than the actors. Since the List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters article is about the book characters, I agree that images of the actors are better suited at the List of Game of Thrones characters article (which, indeed, has free images of the actors). Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Since this article is about the book series, not the tv series, the Smallville (which is not only a TV series, but one not based on a pre-existing book series) article isn't particularly relevant as a comparison in relation to attempting to provide character illustrations/images. I'd be extremely interested in seeing an article in which the use out-of-character actor images as illustrations of book characters was practiced & considered acceptable. (No-one would get away for very long with adding, for example, an out-of-character Gwyneth Paltrow to the Emma (book) article.) The image copyright issue has been noted elsewhere in related threads.--TyrS 05:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The Smallville article is "particularly relevant" since you stated, "Using obviously out-of-character photos of actors to supposedly illustrate these characters!? Not too bright." Like I stated, "it is acceptable (and often practiced) to use images of actors to illustrate not only what the characters look like but what the actors look like, especially since these images are WP:Free images as opposed to WP:Fair-use images (which does not allow for providing an image of every character in an article, unless the illustrations satisfy the fair-use criteria)." My wording was phrased in a "not only, but also" way; it was meant to indicate that the two come hand in hand -- illustrating the character and actor. An image caption in such a case will state "[So and so actor] portrays [so and so character]," which is perfectly fine to do. Is seen in various Wikipedia television and film articles, including many WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles. I did not state that "it is acceptable (and often practiced)" to use "out-of-character actor images" to solely illustrate the characters, as in "This is [character so and so]." But I didn't state that doing so would be wrong either. And I clearly already agreed that it's best that the actor images you removed not be in this article.
And, yes, a WP:Free image of Gwyneth Paltrow (which is what the image you pointed to above is) could be could be added to the Emma (novel) article to relay that Gwyneth Paltrow portrayed Emma. But doing so would only seem valid if there were an encyclopedic, prose section in that article about actor portrayals instead of the the poor Adaptations list noting different people who have portrayed the character. If you doubt that the Gwyneth Paltrow image could be validly used in that article in the prose way I noted, you can simply ask about it at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I'm not sure what "image copyright issue" you are referring to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, there really is no issue here, and should be no need for lengthy posts. Have you read and understood the significance of this section's title? My comment that you quoted first above is in relation to this article being about the book series. (My summary, "rmv images of out-of-character actors from tv adaptation. This article is about the novels. There is a separate article for the tv series", of my edit, to which you referred in your first post, also makes this clear.) We aren't discussing what might be appropriate in articles (like those on tv serieses) where actor casting is mentioned/relevant.
I encourage you to try adding a photo of Gwyneth Paltrow to the Emma (novel) article (naturally when I referred to that article, I was referring to it as it now stands), to demonstrate how acceptable that would be considered by other editors. The article that's actually in question (List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters) neither has, nor needs, a section about actor portrayals, as that's covered in detail in articles where it's relevant.--TyrS 02:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The two paragraphs in my latest response to you above are hardly lengthy. And my first response to you above certainly is not. You are the one who responded to my post as though I don't know what I'm talking about, when, indeed, when it comes to any discussion I have with you regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I know what I am talking about. Your rudeness regarding me above is uncalled for, especially given that you know how I am likely to respond to such rudeness. But thanks for again demonstrating that there is hardly any chance of the two of us ever getting along, and that it's oftentimes best to simply ignore each other. My post above was more so for people in general than for you anyway, so that they will not wrongly follow what you stated. Of course I understand "the significance of this section's title." There is nothing off-topic in my above posts. As for encouraging "[me] to try adding a photo of Gwyneth Paltrow to the Emma (novel) article, to demonstrate how acceptable that would be considered by other editors," I made it explicitly clear how such an image in that article would be acceptable. I don't need to demonstrate a thing regarding that, which is why I told you: "If you doubt that the Gwyneth Paltrow image could be validly used in that article in the prose way I noted, you can simply ask about it at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy." You don't want to take that advice? Okay then. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, you've been reminded before to keep your personal remarks off article talk pages.
The first part of your statement that "it is acceptable (and often practiced) to use images of actors to illustrate not only what the characters look like but what the actors look like" remains incorrect. (And of course it's acceptable to use images of actors to illustrate what the actors look like. Are you imagining there's some disagreement about that?) Your comparison between this article, which is a list of fictional characters, and the Smallville tv series article Cast subsection remains inapplicable, since the actor images there couldn't possibly be mistaken as an attempt to illustrate the (fictional) characters, located as they are clearly under "Cast" they are obviously there to illustrate the actors rather than characters. There continues to be nothing wrong with either my comments or my edits (which I continue to stand by, as no evidence to the contrary has been presented) - the problem seems to be that you don't understand them and possibly their whole context. That is something I can't fix, but of course it doesn't make anything I've written or edited here "wrong".--TyrS 05:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now it's time for a "lengthy post": Reminded by you, you mean? If you are going to lecture, then be consistent regarding your own behavior. You made this personal with your snide "there really is no issue here, and should be no need for lengthy posts" commentary. And with your snide "Have you read and understood the significance of this section's title?" comment, in addition to your seemingly snide "I encourage you to try adding a photo of Gwyneth Paltrow to the Emma (novel) article, to demonstrate how acceptable that would be considered by other editors." That last bit came across as a challenge to me, as if there is no way that a Gwyneth Paltrow image (of her not in-character) would be acceptable in that article. I've clearly disregarded your add-in of "(naturally when I referred to that article, I was referring to it as it now stands)" comment as unneeded. My statement of "it is acceptable (and often practiced) to use images of actors to illustrate not only what the characters look like but what the actors look like" does not remain incorrect. It was never incorrect, and I explained perfectly well what I meant by it above. Sure, perhaps the "characters" and "actors" part should be traded in my wording, and should instead read as "images of actors to illustrate not only what the actors look like but what the characters look like," but my above posts suggest nothing about there being a dispute that actor images can be used to illustrate what the actors look like. My above posts are primarily about your wrong assertion that actor images can't be used to illustrate what the characters look like. For some think that actor images in, for example, a Cast section are only there to illustrate the actors. And you are wrong in that thought process. And you would know that you are wrong in that thought process if you edited Wikipedia television or film articles more often, or watched WP:TV or WP:FILM, witnessing the various discussions that go on at those WikiProjects. The Arre 9 example I mentioned above was Arre 9 using an image to illustrate not only what the actors look like, but what the characters look like. And there is no policy, guideline or essay stating that such an approach is wrong.
See where I specifically stated above "especially since these images are WP:Free images as opposed to WP:Fair-use images"? Well, I stated that because there are often times that an editor (a less experienced editor) will want to use WP:Fair use images to illustrate what fictional characters look like. Often, the editor in question is then told by a more experienced editor that there are certain criteria that fair use images need to pass to be used in such a way. If it's not an infobox image matter, then the more experienced editor will suggest that WP:Free images (as in actor images) instead be used to illustrate the characters' appearances; this happens often at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. See, for example, this discussion. Images in Cast sections, sections that are often as much as or more so about the characters as compared to the actors, are there to show what the actor and character look like. They go hand in hand, even in the case of recasts, of course. The wording of "[So and so actor] portrays [so and so character]" is about both the actor and character. I saw when you removed this image from the Daenerys Targaryen article, claiming that it "doesn't illustrate topic of article." That removal was wrong because it is perfectly acceptable to have an image of the actor who portrays the character in the article about the character, whether or not that actor is in-character, to illustrate the portrayer. The only reason that I didn't revert you there is because I didn't feel like getting into a debate with you (same goes for your approaching other A Song of Ice and Fire characters articles in similar regard). If that image had been used in the character infobox, you would have had a valid case.
The reason that this discussion continued after my initial post above? Because you took exception with my stating "it is acceptable (and often practiced) to use images of actors to illustrate not only what the characters look like but what the actors look like," and apparently thought that I was stating "it is acceptable (and often practiced)" to use "out-of-character actor images" to solely illustrate the characters, as in "This is [character so and so]." Not what I stated, as already made clear by me above. I pointed out a part of your initial commentary (your first post in this section) that can be wrongly interpreted. I stand by image statements in this section via my significant experience editing Wikipedia television or film articles, including the WP:Good or WP:Featured ones, and because of my significant knowledge of Wikipedia image matters. But as always, go on believing what you want regarding Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I already agreed with you on removing the images from this article; so whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Flyer22, that was another very lengthy (not to mention unnecessary) post. I'm dismayed to see that you haven't yet grown out of the habit of using article talk pages as soapboxes for self-promotion. The rest of us are actually here to try to improve the article, not read about what a superior Wikipedian you believe yourself to be. If you really must vent in that way, at least do it on my user talk page.

Again, there was & remains nothing wrong with my comments or edits. (And no, it's not "rude" of another editor to disagree with you.) Again your problem is with your own misinterpretations of my words. Perhaps before you react to something I write you should consider whether or not your attitude towards me is influencing your reading.

About the Daenerys Targaryen article (or any other articles), comments you might wish to make about my edits (which I absolutely stand by) there should be made on the relevant talk page. This is basic, common-sense Wikipedia practice for keeping threads from getting too tangled & convoluted.--TyrS 08:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you continue to misunderstand things in my posts that are quite simple to understand and since you continue to be lacking in your understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there was nothing "very lengthy (not to mention unnecessary)" about that post. Trying to get you to understand when and why you are wrong is not soapboxing or self-promotion. And Wikipedia's definition of soapboxing is very different than yours anyway, per WP:SOAPBOX. Every time my comments are backed up by policy or guideline, even with various other editors supporting me in that, you stand by your interpretations of those policies and/or guidelines. That's not growing or truly trying to help Wikipedia articles. The fact that you state "there was & remains nothing wrong with my comments or edits" even after I pointed to a specific discussion showing editors stating that an actor image (as in a free image) can be used to illustrate a character and/or is preferable to a non-free image of that character, is more of the same misguided editing you have displayed and continue to display at this site. And that does not dismay me. Oh, and I didn't state that simply disagreeing with me makes you rude. Stating so is more twisting of my words. And if my attitude toward you was influencing my reading of what you have stated, then I would have started out this section very differently. Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
And regarding your assertion of "basic, common-sense Wikipedia practice," my mention of Daenerys Targaryen was very in line with the discussion at hand. Mentioning Gwyneth Paltrow and the Emma (novel)? Not so much. Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this talk page is no place for our bickering or any bickering among editors. And because of that, I'm tempted to strike through my "08:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)" post above. The main thing I was trying to close out with before this discussion kept going on is that I agree with your removal of the images from this article; we really should leave the discussion at that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Now, after long posts full of personal attacks on me, now you agree with what I pointed out much earlier about talk page use? Goodness me, that's nice of you.
Flyer22, you have shown above and several times in the past that, in your mind, your correctness is a foregone conclusion. When other editors (besides me) point out, for example, obvious POV in articles that you dominate, and other ways in which you're mistaken, you demonstrate that you somehow have unlimited time and energy for telling them how they must be mistaken.
And no, besprinkling your posts with links to WP policy doesn't prove that your interpretation of those policies is more correct than mine or that you know more about them. If you quoted a relevant section that applied, that would be a different matter. Simply showing that you know how to link to a policy doesn't substantiate your claims.
I meant what I said about being very interested in seeing an example of out-of-character actor images being acceptable in an article as illustrations of the character (not of the actor, not of which actors have been cast in the role, but of the character itself) and you haven't managed to do that. Instead of launching off into personal attacks, references to things you've written elsewhere, and claims about your excellence as a Wikipedian, why not simply provide an example that substantiates your contention?
There is no "Wikipedia definition" of the word 'soapboxing'. The word predated, and can be used independently of, the WP policy (which doesn't constitute a "definition").
Exemplary Wikipedians (as you claim to be, above, and elsewhere) don't disrespect what article talk pages are for by using them to write about what exemplary Wikipedians they believe themselves to be. By doing so you're not only contradicting that very claim, but also demonstrating that your judgement in general is not necessarily as reliable as you believe it to be. Exemplary Wikipedians are able to discuss minor disagreements in a rational way. You've demonstrated repeatedly an inability to do this. You can hardly continue to blame other editors and to get upset and be amazed when, based on this, they don't automatically take your every word as scripture.
For the above reasons, for a long time now I've actively avoided articles and talk pages on which you seem to be involved, since it seems that my name is some kind of red flag to you and results in nothing constructive being achieved. Perhaps you should do the same, as I don't intend to stop making contributions to Wikipedia.--TyrS 01:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict due to you changing your wording]: All wrong, and a twisting of my words, as always. For example, I never stated that I am an exemplary Wikipedian; I admit my flaws on Wikipedia, as recently as here and here. It's clear to me that whenever we interact, you are more interested in a battle and pushing your POV (usually a WP:Activism POV) than bettering the Wikipedia article at hand. What should have been the end of this discussion was pressed on by you because you couldn't take me pointing out a flaw (and this discussion I pointed to above indeed shows that it is a flaw) in your initial post of this section. I pointed out that flaw for reasons I've made perfectly clear above. Before ever attempting to interact with me again, make sure that you have read up on (and comprehend) all of the pertinent Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Continuing to push your POV on articles, POV that usually is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline, much like your latest image crusade, is not exemplary in the least. Oh, and do stop acting like a lot of editors have a problem with me; there are not many editors who do have a problem with me (except the many vandals or other unconstructive editors I revert daily), and the ones who do have a problem with me are usually POV-pushers like yourself and/or who have a severe lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Editors like you, a subject recently addressed here, don't comprehend what WP:Neutral actually means and so you get upset at the editors who do understand that policy/enforce it. Your assertion of "Exemplary Wikipedians are able to discuss minor disagreements in a rational way. You've demonstrated repeatedly an inability to do this." is contradicted by this section on my user page and various posts currently on my talk page. In none of my disputes with you...has there been a case where WP:Consensus was on your side. Perhaps you should analyze why that is, other than the typical assertion of "they are all POV-pushers," something editors such as yourself are known to spout.
Above you stated: "I meant what I said about being very interested in seeing an example of out-of-character actor images being acceptable in an article as illustrations of the character (not of the actor, not of which actors have been cast in the role, but of the character itself) and you haven't managed to do that." You stated this, despite this passage from me: "I did not state that 'it is acceptable (and often practiced)' to use 'out-of-character actor images' to solely illustrate the characters, as in 'This is [character so and so].' But I didn't state that doing so would be wrong either. And I clearly already agreed that it's best that the actor images you removed not be in this article." And despite that passage being reiterated by me. You blew up this discussion for no valid reason at all.
As for avoiding you, perhaps you missed where I stated above: "The only reason that I didn't revert you there is because I didn't feel like getting into a debate with you (same goes for your approaching other A Song of Ice and Fire characters articles in similar regard). If that image had been used in the character infobox, you would have had a valid case." Usually, I don't have to worry about interacting with you, considering that you edit Wikipedia so sporadically. But I will usually state something when I feel that I should state it. As for you having "actively avoided articles and talk pages on which [I] seem to be active," your original wording before a change to your post, I wish that you had exercised such a practice in this case last year. Whatever it takes to keep us apart, unless necessary, I'm all for it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me, Flyer22, this (and you) could obviously go on for ever, and at great, convoluted length.

You write "(and this discussion I pointed to above indeed shows that it is a flaw)". No, actually, that actor is in character in the image in question. My original comment, to which you objected, was about the use of out of character actor images to try to illustrate characters, as previously appeared in this article (the article we're supposed to be discussing).

If you feel the need to parade your barnstar on article talk pages, something is definitely wrong. Sorry, but exemplary Wikipedians don't need to do that sort of grand-standing.

There is nothing wrong with an editor adding to or slightly altering their post before anyone else has replied, Flyer22. Your trying to make that into yet another of my supposed misdeeds is a bit sad. Speaking of which, if I'm such an evil Wikipedia criminal, why are you the only one attacking me? Why haven't I been banned, blocked, received sanctions, warnings and/or been investigated for things, for example, like sock-puppetry, as, by the way, you have?

As far talking about "editors like you", I can honestly say I've never come across another editor like you. I have never seen anyone else spend so much time on article talk pages talking about themselves and their supposed categorical correctness in all things Wikipedia.

Please clarify exactly how you think I'm committing "activism" in the current article? Honestly. And please, for god's sake, try to keep it reasonably succinct (and of course, relevant).--TyrS 03:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it can't go on forever, because I would not tolerate it for that long, and am pretty much done with this "discussion" now.
You asserted that actor images cannot, or rather should not, be used to illustrate characters. The aforementioned "this discussion" link I pointed to shows editors suggesting that a free image of an actor (note that there usually is no free image of actors as characters) can be used to illustrate the character. Those editors explicitly state that. And I explicitly addressed that matter in my "07:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)" post above, also noting that such suggestions are made (and followed through on) all the time at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. That commentary somehow seems to have flown right over your head. Either that, or you are simply acting like that discussion doesn't prove that opposite of your assertion.
Pointing to my achievements, which document more than just barnstars but also discussions regarding dispute resolution, etc., is a valid way to counter your ridiculous claim that I have "demonstrated repeatedly an inability" to "discuss minor disagreements in a rational way." I care not that you consider pointing to that stuff a "need to parade [my] barnstar[s] on article talk pages," that it is "definitely wrong" and that "exemplary Wikipedians don't need to do that sort of grand-standing." You are wrong; the vast majority of everything you've stated in this discussion is wrong.
Your failure to see how you were engaging in WP:Activism in the link I provided at the end of my "02:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)" post, a link which also notes the WP:Activism you engaged in at the Gender article years ago, speaks for itself.
And as for "succinct" commentary... Again, don't criticize unless you are going to abide by the same mindset; your "01:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)" post above certainly is not succinct. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and as for your addition of "There is nothing wrong with an editor adding to or slightly altering their post before anyone else has replied, Flyer22.," I never stated that there was, especially since I alter my initial posts often. I was simply noting that your post had been changed, so that those who come across the discussion can see why what I am quoting is not in your above apply. But that "There is nothing wrong" assertion of yours is just more of you twisting my words and/or misinterpreting my meaning of things.
And as for stating, "Your trying to make that into yet another of my supposed misdeeds is a bit sad. Speaking of which, if I'm such an evil Wikipedia criminal, why are you the only one attacking me? Why haven't I been banned, blocked, received sanctions, warnings and/or been investigated for things, for example, like sock-puppetry, as, by the way, you have?"... LOL, I figured that it would be sooner rather than later that you mention my blocks. You can mention them as much as you want to, obviously, but I was cleared of every single one of them, thanks to one WP:CheckUser in particular having done significant research into the matter at hand, and thanks to a WP:Administrator who overturned my most recent block (in fact, I was once blocked simply to protect my account from being edited by my brother), as shown at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases (which also shows support from those who know that I wouldn't violate the WP:Sockpuppet policy). And judging by User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#You being an admin, it does not look like those blocks will hinder me much at all. When you stated "who, by the way, has been blocked at some point for sockpuppetry, it appears" back in 2012, I was tickled to say the least; it was you commenting without the facts. WP:Ban is not the same thing as WP:Block, by the way. Never have I been banned. And never have I been sanctioned, other than the aforementioned blocks. And if you edited Wikipedia more often, you'd certainly get "attacked," as you call it, by others for your sometimes sketchy editing.
And for other editors, regarding the WP:Activism matter, this is the post I was responding to. As seen there, TyrS changed it to essentially focus on activism regarding this article, even though I did not suggest any activism regarding this article.
And as far talking about "editors like you", what an active imagination you have there, TyrS. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
"Editors like you" were your own words from a couple posts above, sweetie. Nothing to do with my imagination at all.
Seriously, you're using my own edits to wording in my own post (before anyone has replied) as "evidence" of my wrongness? That's truly bizarre. Ever heard the phrase "scraping the bottom of the barrel"?
Flyer22, you continue to fail to provide, as requested, and as is relevant to this current article right here, right now, not something that happened 6 months or 2 years ago, an example of an actual existing article in which an out-of-character actor image is used to illustrate a fictional character, to support your criticism of my original comment. Your persistence despite a lack of such evidence gives your lengthy posts the nature of a personal crusade. I suggest you drop it and just avoid articles I'm involved in as I've been avoiding articles you're involved in since your last (incorrect) accusation of "activism" against me, which discussion I chose to leave. The fact there was that (though I know better than to expect you to take any of my comments at face value) my interest was in injecting some global perspective and common sense (policies which you've shown that you don't value) into minor aspects of the article. There seemed to be no point trying to explain that to you, as your habit has been, immediately and via exhaustingly long-winded, convoluted, self-aggrandizing posts, to reject 99% of anything I write. Clearly you've claimed my stepping away from that otherwise potentially endless argument as a personal victory and as proof of your accusations. Stepping away from an argument like that is obviously something you simply can't do.--TyrS 05:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Above, you stated, "'Editors like you' were your own words from a couple posts above, sweetie." Um, no duh. And you stated, "Seriously, you're using my own edits to wording in my own post (before anyone has replied) as 'evidence' of my wrongness? That's truly bizarre." Like I just stated above, these types of assertions of yours are just more of you twisting my words and/or misinterpreting my meaning of things. And it's bizarre that I'm noting that your post has changed and that I was replying to a piece before that post changed? No, your argument against that is bizarre. People are going to see this discussion, and if I want it made clear why I am quoting something that is not seen above, I will make that clear.
A personal crusade? Out of the two of us, I'm certain that I'm not the one on a personal crusade. You needlessly pressed this discussion into a direction it did not need to go, all because I clarified that actor images are indeed sometimes used to illustrate the characters. And yet I'm the bizarre one? You are the one who has thrown all kinds of WP:Personal attacks by way of name-calling. And yet the attacking in this discussion is all on me? I'm the one who repeatedly tried to end this discussion by closing with the fact that I agreed with you on the removal of the images, and by even stating that I agree that we shouldn't be bickering at this talk page. And yet I'm the one who can't WP:Drop the stick? Just pure silliness from you, almost everything you've stated above is pure silliness. For example, I have been the one to "drop the stick" in various Wikipedia discussions, and I don't think that getting WP:The Last Word is what makes someone right. Furthermore, there are no "global perspective" and "common sense" policies. And there is nothing "exhaustingly long-winded, convoluted, self-aggrandizing" about explaining and following WP:Due weight (an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy) appropriately, except to editors who refuse to follow that policy accordingly. Do keep up that practice of avoiding me. I have certainly avoided you when I see you, including at the Women and children first article. But like I noted in my "02:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)" post above: "...I will usually state something when I feel that I should state it." Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Lolz, so I've "imagined" you talking about your barnstar and how superior a Wikipedian you believe yourself to be?

You can't seriously complain about what you see as me twisting your words and meanings when you've been doing it to my words since your first post. And as far as WP:Personal attacks, have you read your own posts? Are personal attacks only ok when you make them?

Amusingly, in your post of 03:08, 14 July 2014 you label me, three times, a "POV pusher". Then you go on to write (not with great clarity, but your intention comes across) about "the typical assertion of "they are all POV-pushers," something editors such as yourself are known to spout". Honey, you've just spouted exactly that, three times, at me, in your immediately preceding paragraphs. It seems that your own convolutions are confusing even you. Or is just 'different' when you, in your infallible rightness, spout it?

Your comment about my editing "sporadically" as if there's some connection between quality and frequency of editing is kind of sad, Flyer22. The fact that you seem to have nothing else to do but to type on this website is the thing that's really odd. I have what's known as a life outside Wikipedia, dear. Those pesky things tend to prevent people from spending every second of every day on a website.

By the way, Flyer22, dredging up and harping on about months and years-old debates to try to prove you're in the right now only demonstrates your inability to move on. And for crying out loud, continually restating and re-referencing your own opinions & statements doesn't make them more convincing or valid.

If you're going to post a link to policies like WP:Due weight please show how you think it applies to this current article (i.e. the thing we're supposed to be focussing on, remember, oh great and superior Wikipedian?).

I would love to see you substantiate your contention (the contention in question about this actual article) with an applicable, relevant example. If you ever find one please post it on my talk page.--TyrS 09:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

More twisting of my words. More hypocritical silliness. More clarity that you will never understand what is wrong with aspects of your editing even when it's pointed out by several editors in addition to me. I never twisted your words. You, on the other hand? I point out that you changed your post. And then you jump to the conclusion of "There is nothing wrong with an editor adding to or slightly altering their post before anyone else has replied, Flyer22." You've stated ludicrous things like that throughout this argument. And on the topic of WP:Personal attacks... I stated, "In none of my disputes with you...has there been a case where WP:Consensus was on your side. Perhaps you should analyze why that is, other than the typical assertion of 'they are all POV-pushers,' something editors such as yourself are known to spout." Other than that, I have no reason to state "they are all POV-pushers" in your case, since it's usually just you POV-pushing some feminist view or otherwise. And if the best you can come up with for my violating the WP:Personal attacks policy is calling you a POV-pusher and accusing you of engaging in WP:Activism (more so pointing out that you engage in it), common terms used on Wikipedia against other editors without any type of sanctions for having used those terms, then, wow; that's certainly nothing compared to the WP:Personal attacks you've dished out above.
For example, essentially stating that I have no life, simply because I usually have enough time to spend several hours on Wikipedia, given that my work is primarily online-based, as stated on my user page? Herostratus had it right when he noted your silliness in that regard the first time you made such a claim. Not to mention that the vast majority of very experienced Wikipedian editors have several or more hours to give to Wikipedia. But, oh right, in your opinion, they have no lives either. And it doesn't matter that we often spend several hours (not just a few) off Wikipedia as well, with my contribution history, for example, commonly showing such breaks.
If I haven't changed in two years (not that changing is always a good thing), then you certainly have not. And it's a problem that, due to your sporadic editing, you have not improved much in your understanding of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. No doubt you still think that your POV-pushing pronoun swapping and WP:Systemic bias claims at the Gender article years ago was appropriate, despite the clear WP:Consensus there that it was not. There is "a connection between quality and frequency of editing," as many Wikipedians at this site, including me, have attested to. And I find it quite sad when an editor who, for example, has been with this site for six years barely knows a thing about the way the site works and is essentially on a WP:Newbie level, draining the more experienced editors because the more experienced editors are left to be teachers to that far less experienced editor; I'm not necessarily speaking of you in that regard, but you are very close to WP:Newbie level; indeed, you are a WP:Newbie in more ways than one. I move on quite often, actually, but when an editor displays the same problematic editing he or she has displayed for years, I'm going to point it out; there is no moving on from that. You stated, "I would love to see you substantiate your contention (the contention in question about this actual article) with an applicable, relevant example." I already did (more than once), in reply to an initial part of your first post in this section. You know, the post I pointed out a flaw in, and you couldn't bare being proven wrong in that specific regard, so you dragged this discussion out with silly diatribes? Yep, that's the one. Stop hijacking this thread to further your grudge against me, and move on already. Flyer22 (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


There is an inconsistent mxiture of tense for the opening sentences of each character's introduction. For example "Ned Stark was the..." and "Robb Stark is the...". Shall we set it out here and now that all should be in the present tense? It certainly shouldn't (and doesn't appear to) depend on whether the character is still "alive" at the present point in the story as it's been released in book or show form. So it should therefore be a consistent 'is'.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It certainly should depend on whether the character is still "alive" at the present point in the story as it's been released in book form. From a POV outside the books, one discusses the nature of the character or the character's actions in the present tense but, within the literary universe itself, one speaks in the past tense: "At the start of the books, Ned Stark is busy wenching in Braavos" but "Eddard Stark's reanimated corpse was promoted by King Tyrion to his small council in 306 AC". Similarly, the examples within the article on Robb: "Robb Stark is the eldest child of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark" but "...he was already being groomed to take his place as M.C. of Winterfell upon his father's death."
That may look inconsistent upon first glance but it simply reflects separate contexts. I could see an argument to be made against including spoilers out of order: people should ideally be able to read through the first few sections of information and stop where they like without learning too much and ruining their experience with the works themselves. But that's an argument about tone, style, and phrasing, not grammar. (And it's still not an argument for a consistent present tense: it's one for setting the present tense at the beginning of the first volume. It's incredibly awkward even from a literary point of view to discuss Rhaegar or Aegon in the present tense when they are universally treated as historical figures in the works themselves.) — LlywelynII 05:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
My comments above were concerning the inconsistency amongst the opening lines of the character profiles. In my opinion these should always be present tense, "dead" or "alive".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sansa Stark Main page[edit]

I have created a main page for Sansa Stark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16jaylancew (talkcontribs) 04:40, 19 May 2014‎ (UTC)


In case anyone wants an explanation: I am going to delete the short paragraph about Hodor's supposed aphasia. He is a fictional character and not a neurological patient, so I don't think diagnosing anything is useful to anyone. --Salanola Ortoluron (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

suggestion to move (rename) article(s)[edit]

Perhaps to reduce confusion between this page and the List of Game of Thrones characters (tv) one we should rename/move both? E.g. "List of characters from A Song of Ice and Fire novels" and "List of characters from Game of Thrones tv series"? (Or perhaps with "novels" and "tv series" in parentheses.) --TyrS 06:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

tv adaptation: 63 mentions of tv studio[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the tv studio that made the tv adaptation gets 63 (sixty three!) mentions in this article, which is supposed to be about the novels?

Since there's only one tv adaptation of these novels, we can say "tv adaptation". We don't have to mention the specific tv studio sixty three times, it is not only ridiculously repetitive but also makes the article almost read like a promo for that tv studio. (This comment even applies to the pages on the tv adaptation itself.) I am fixing this problem (in this article, anyway) now.--TyrS 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is entirely too large[edit]

I have been working on this page for a few weeks now and have come to the conclusion that this article is pretty unwieldy. It could serve to be split up into sections. Furthermore, I think dividing the characters into lists according to their house is also quite confusing, because loyalties have changed many times over the course of the book, especially for Starks and Tullys. Suggestions for improvements as follows:

  • Brief discussion of the differences between POV characters and non-POV characters
  • List of main POV characters with a BRIEF and CONCISE summary of their major plot points and links to their main articles
   Examples: Ned Stark, Arya/Sansa/Bran, Tyrion, Dany, ect
  • List of major non-POV characters with a BRIEF and CONCISE summary of their major plot points and links to their main articles
   Examples: Melissandre, Stannis, Robb, Baelish, Varys, Jorah
  • List of minor POV characters with a summary of their plot points
   Examples: All of the Greyjoys, Berristan, ect
  • List of minor non-POV characters
   Examples: Vargo, Randyl Tarly, Kevan, ect  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 
I agree that this list is loooong, but until there are more individual character articles (that contain more than just plot rehash) it is cleanest to have one list. It is currently being trimmed down so that should help. There have been "House" articles before but I think that has encouraged too much plot, more than is even covered here. Anyway, I don't think this is the type of list that people read from beginning to end; rather, it is a redirect destination for various characters and families the reader may want more info on.— TAnthonyTalk 01:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

New article submission for Ned Stark[edit]

In my first article creation, I made an entry in my sandbox and submitted it for review. Any help editing it would be greatly appreciated. Eric the fever (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe there is sufficient requirement for such a separate article. This belief is supplemented by the fact that Mr. Stark is a short-lived character overall in the Song of Ice and Fire books, and the television series based on it. Perchance it would be beneficial on a Ice and Fire Wikia site, but alas not on an encyclopedia Ciao Mane (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from. I would say that at least Ned Stark warrants his own page, simply because he is talked about quite a bit. It is very rare and notable that a television show or novel kills off its main character in the first season / novel. Also remember that Ned Stark's plotline form the base entire story for every book, with his actions driving and influencing events in book five.
There is also precident for creating wikipedia articles for seemingly minor characters, afterall, Elrond only appears in four chapters of the entire Lord of the Rings saga, but he has his own character page. I think in Ned's case, he warrants a separate article. Characters like Robb, Bronn, The Blackfish, ect can remain here. Eric the fever (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Ned may only appear in one of the novels but he is arguably the lead protagonist in that particular novel. In my research for other ASOIAF character articles I've seen more than one mention in reviews of his thematic importance etc. The new Eddard Stark article touches on that and is not laden with too much plot, I look forward to seeing it develop and will definitely participate myself. Now Petyr Baelish on the other hand ... he's a player in all the books but I haven't come across much analysis, eventually I think he needs to be folded back into this list, his "article" is just an expanded list entry.— TAnthonyTalk 04:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
And yes, the fact that both readers and TV audiences went nuts over his death (and this reaction has been so well documented) is reason alone for an article.— TAnthonyTalk
He might have only been an active character in the first of the novels, but the negative space around his absence is a major part of the second and third and continues into the fifth. (His boys are practically wearing WWNSD wristbands.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Major clean up incoming[edit]

In my free time over the next few weeks, I plan to do a major de-bloating of this article. Just about every entry is bogged down with plot details that will completely escape any individual who has not read the books. Case in point: The Arya entry mentioned the names of specific towers and walls of harrenhal she visited. That is completely and totally unnecessary. So its time to take the initiative and clean up this obese mess. Eric the fever (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, you're doing a fine job and I think you have a good feel for what is important and what is trivial detail in these smallish character blurbs.— TAnthonyTalk 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Oathkeeper[edit]

There's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page concerning book chapter information and appropriate sourcing. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Does Rickon really deserve his own page?[edit]

Title says it all, he is not a notable character at all.Eric the fever (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)