Talk:House Stark

message: I just reread A Game of Thrones, and in the chapter (with Eddard's POV), Robert asks him who Jon's mother was, and Ned quietly remarks that the mothers name was Wylla. Someone else also mentions the same name to Arya later on. I was wondering why no one mentioned this in Jon's section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.14.253.199 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is mentioned in his section, in the last paragraph. Brendan Moody 03:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon Snow's mother

message: I removed the family tree uploaded by 145.12.10.1 and changed it to an ASCII version (I also corrected a spelling mistake or two). I don't think there is support in the books for the genealogy in the original image, so I moved that information to a list, with a description of the state of the information.
There would still be room for a "fanciful" family tree that is largely speculative. I think that would be nice to look at, and if provided with the necessary disclaimer wouldn't violate Wikipedia principles too much. (But see WP:NOR).
I've added a note on Jon Snow as his position in the family tree required clarification.  It doesn't wrap well in the box, however.  Can this be fixed? Pejorative.majeure 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family tree

message: I have started the task of cleaning up House Stark by merging other pages into this (this has been requested several times, and there are VfD's for quite a few Stark pages that seem to reach merge consensus anyway. What needs to be done with this page is 
*Check the wording. Currently there are repetitions, inconsistencies, bad grammar, etc.
*Fix all the redirected links. This is a huge and menial task.  Go to the "What links here" link, and follow the redirection links backwards. Then update links of the form Bran Stark to Bran Stark. I've fixed a few, but many remain.Thore 17:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started cleaning up the minor grammar and usage problems, but I'm not quite sure how to deal with some of the larger issues.  Many of the character descriptions are disjointed and repetitive; fixing them would involve great expansion, which doesn't seem worthwhile.  The descriptions already tend toward plot summary as it is.  Not that some sort of biography isn't an important aspect of character description, but I think fewer details would be better.  There's also a tendency toward NPOV statements that I find problematic.  Thoughts, anyone? Brendan 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Given the lack of recent feedback I'm going to Be bold and do some major revision of the article in the next few days.  Tentative plans include:
*Reorganizing: I think it's odd to discuss minor figures like historical Starks or secondary ones like Eddard's siblings before Eddard's children, four of whom are major characters.  I'm thinking of starting the article with Ned, then doing his children, then his brothers and sister, and finally "notable Starks" from the past.  Sort of like Stark appendix entry from the first book, I suppose.
*Entry length: The sections on the kids in particular are still a bit long and plot-summary-ish.  I'd like to cut them by 25-50%.  This would mean including only the major developments for each character rather than attempting a throughline of everything they've done across four volumes.  It also involves shortening or trimming extraneous explanations of minor points (what wights are, for instance, or plot details not affecting the relevant characters.)
*Bad wording and redirected link checks, as noted above.
If no one chimes in here with complaints about the above plans, I'll probably start this work in a few days.  I know someone's been editing recently, as the Sansa and Arya sections are updated to reflect the just-released book, so if you're reading this, feel free to chime in. Brendan 02:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be keeping the list of notable Starks and the genealogy, definitely; I was just thinking about moving the notable Starks to later in the article.  I might work a couple of them into the introduction, though, to give more of a sense of the Stark history than the intro currently suggests.  And the genealogy, I think, works where it is. Brendan 19:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The edit is now basically done, though I still have to go through and check all the links.  I still think the Arya and Sansa sections are a bit unwieldy, but I can't see how to cut them further.  On another topic, the last person to work with the genealogy seems to have made it so that Eddard's children are no longer within the box; I tried to fix it, but don't really know how. Brendan 02:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be better to have short summaries on this page for those main (POV or developed) characters, with a 'Main Article' link to those whose entries are so lengthy - Jon Snow, Sansa and Arya should get their own articles.  Also, Jeyne Westerling's entry should be akin to Catelyn Tully's. Pejorative.majeure 14:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was settled over a year ago. It was decided that the only characters that deserved their own pages were Jon and Dany. Jon's page was later removed for lack of content. If you have any suggestions to the content or formating of the Song of Ice and Fire articles I recommend you sign up at the Wikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire and leave ideas at the talk page. NeoFreak 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned revision

message: I put in my own summary of Arya; I hope it's an improvement over the previous iteration. I believe structurally Arya should go:
*King's Landing, Needle, Syrio, Ned's tragedy (her roots)
*Places she went, who she was with, her disguises, friends she made, enemies she made (merely a list, these kinda blend together)
*Development as a character. This is hard since Arya is learning language, politics, practicing her Rogue abilities, breaking rules, growing physically stronger, observing culture in Braavos, and killing bad guys, but that's all too much to say. -NorrYtt 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arya

message: I've rearranged the Lyanna section again, since the last editor labelled as unconfirmed a number of things that are actually facts.  That Rhaegar crowned Lyanna queen of love and beauty and that he disappeared with her have been unambiguously stated in the text.  This information is no more "unconfirmed" than any of the other backstory in the series, none of which is so labelled.
The possibility that Lyanna is Jon's mother is unconfirmed, and that's why the original text labelled it a fan theory.
I also deleted "Or so the story goes...", because it's pointless and rather POV. Brendan 19:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyanna

message: I am adding a very brief summary about Jon Snow with a link to his article. Yes, I know that he is "officialy not a Stark" but he should be at least be mentioned. I am adding him below his half-siblings. Flamarande 17:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Snow is not even mentioned 

message: As User:Captain Crawdad pointed out on the Jon Snow talk page, the summary of the character here contains more information than his character page.  While the theories about his parentage are not discussed here, that kind of speculation is not apprpriate for an encyclopedia anyway.  Therefore, I have proposed that Jon Snow be merged (not that anything would actually have to be moved here) into this article. Indrian 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.  Given the current structure of the pages on the series, there's not much need for him to have a separate page any longer, and (as a glance at his talk page will show) I think the parentage speculation highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Brendan Moody 19:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Support.  I agree. Just have the page reroute here. -Captain Crawdad 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Jon Snow 

message: I'm extremely displeased to see that all of the pictures on the Stark page and on the pages of the other Great Houses are missing. Why were they removed? I saw no reason for this. - Two-Legged Wolf
:They were removed because it was no longer clear that the artist had released them under the right licenses for their use in Wikipedia to be acceptable.  You can see some of the discussion about this on the discussion page for the "Song of Ice and Fire" Wikiproject. Brendan Moody 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pictures

message: The page for House Stark mentions two cadet branches in White Harbour and Gulltown. As far as I can remember, no mention is made of these in the texts, ever, and the existence of any cadet branch would change some of the plot points considerably (Sansa's claim to Winterfell, Robb's heir, etc.). I say remove these mentions unless someone can cite where these cadet branches are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.85.27 (talk • contribs) 
:The source is an archive of GRRM comments, specifically here; however, its wording is different.  I'll change the article to reflect the less definite formulation of the comment.  Thanks for pointing it out. Brendan Moody 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cadet Branches

message: Nowhere in the five published books does it explicitly state that Jon Snow is Eddard's physical progeny.  I've removed the line from Eddard to Jon.  I added a note that he was made Eddard's son by royal decree via Robb Stark - but this decree may not have become official once the Red Wedding occurred and most of the witnesses were slain.  For reference, the Tower of the Hand has compiled references in attempting to answer the question: http://www.towerofthehand.com/articles/a/0011/   Pejorative.majeure 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Neofreak stated at the Wars page, Jon is only described as Eddard's son. I removed the changes to the family tree for that reason and also the note, which contained spoilers and extended far off the screen on my display. The Tower of the Hand article is already in the external links section. -Captain Crawdad 07:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on Jon Snow 

message: There's a comment to the effect "Please don't add speculation about Rhaegar and Lyanna" to the section on Jon's parentage, on the grounds that such speculation isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia article. But why isn't it? I mean, speculation per se isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia. But reporting that a particular speculation is widespread isn't itself speculation; it is an objective fact about the world, and thus at least potentially notable and worth reporting. Is mentioning that many fans speculate that Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son, supported with proper citations, ipso facto unencyclopedic? AJD (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the prominence of the theory isn't an objective fact; there's no useful way to gauge whether it really is any more common or widespread than any other fan theory, of which there are hundreds.  The only evidence available (so far as I'm aware) is message boards, blogs, and the like from a few thousand members of hardcore fandom.  Martin's readership goes far beyond that; how can we tell whether the silent majority has any opinion on Jon's parentage?  We could possibly limit the statement to encompass devoted fans (though even then pointing to any one good source would be difficult), but is the opinion of a small core of devotees really worth mentioning?  In the series itself (as opposed to the fan culture built up around the series), Jon's parentage is a minor point.  I don't really think that the general reader interested in these characters would derive any particular benefit from having the information, and I don't think we want to open the door to including fan theories if they meet some underdefined standard of being widespread.  But I welcome other comments. Brendan Moody (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for its comment. There are strict rules against Original Research. While I personally agree with the theory quoted above, it's inappropriate in an encyclopedia. If you can find a qualifying source for this speculation, then it might be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise your theory belongs on a blog or fansite (where it will be welcome). PS My thinking is that GRRM is not above changing Jon's parentage just to surprise the fans. Imagine if he really was Eddard's daughter with some random, nameless camp follower-- that would be stunning after all the teases and speculations. 131.96.47.8 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhaegar and Lyanna again 

message: Can anyone find the So Spake Martin article where GRRM confirms that Jon's heritage will be revealed over the course of the story?  This would be an excellent citation to have and would lay to rest all the people who want the article to include their speculation. ~Marblespire (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine you're thinking of question 5 from this entry. Brendan Moody (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BINGO.  Thank you much.  =)  (I was reading month by month and had only got up to March 2000!)  ~Marblespire (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: Shouldnt it be clarified that there are large gaps of several thousands of years between the kings and lords entered in the House Stark Genealogy?
- Jones 77.75.167.66 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Stark Genealogy