# Talk:Jon Snow (character)

There has basically been an edit war going on for days over the inclusion of extended relatives in the infobox of this article. While other editors (including myself) have provided reasoning in their edit summaries and/or asked for discussion, the IP who keeps reverting the material seems to have no interest in that. And though he/she uses a different IP each time, it is clearly the same person. I've had the page protected again to hopefully encourage discussion here to gain some consensus on this (stupid) issue. I currently have no opinion myself whether the info should stay or go. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed some names on whether they are actually relevant to understanding the plot, and therefore the character. For instance, while Rickard Stark is Jon Snow's grandfather, this is never significant to the plot in the TV series (as far as I know the books as well), and nor is Rickard Stark a significant character. There has to come a point to when you stop listing characters like this, so if listing a relative helps with understanding the plot, put it in IMO, but putting a character in for the sake of putting a character in is not helpful. As the purpose of this article should be to summarize outside reception/analysis of the character, not to talk about plot developments (although that is necessary in order to understand the reception/analysis), only relatives that are crucial to understanding the plot, and therefore the other sections, should be included. --TedEdwards 19:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it's back on with infobox bloat. Maybe art. should be protected? Mithoron (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also considered maybe it's time to protect the page again due to the infobox edits again. Anatashala (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging IP editor(s) @2a00:23c6:9f0a:601:155b:d4b9:9398:21cf:, @2a00:23c6:9f0a:601:24:3c27:9aa3:991b:, @2a00:23c6:9f0a:601:407:6563:8f5b:5823:, @2a00:23c6:9f0a:601:507b:396d:b43:dd39:, @2a00:23c6:9f0a:601:3dd9:857f:1e7d:da47:, @2a00:23c6:9f0a:601:1cdd:461:df18:cae:, @2a00:23c6:9f0a:601:ec49:6257:edfd:2728:, @2a00:23c6:9f0a:601:558b:50cf:1364:6a7a: (likely all the same editor). Multiple editors have objected to your addition of trivial character relatives and descriptions to this already huge infobox recently. There have been several justifications in edit summaries for reverting your edits, but you have never explained in edit summaries or on this talk page why you believe these additions should remain in the article. Please comment here and make an argument for your edits. Our next step is to protect the article so that you will not be able to edit it until you become a registered user. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@TAnthony: Uh... you do realize that pinging IPs doesn't work right? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Haha yeah, but we had to at least try so we can better justify protection.— TAnthonyTalk 17:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There has been another undiscussed edit, I'll seek protection.— TAnthonyTalk 19:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nedhartley: Hey, I just reverted you again with an edit summary, but I realize should have commented here first, sorry. I'm not trying to edit war over this LOL. It seems to me that "storyline" is the accepted usage here but I'm willing to discuss. Other editors are obviously welcome to join in. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 16:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just following Webster's Collegiate. I, too, will not engage in an edit war; it's not that important. Have a nice day. Nedhartley (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)