I can only assume you're going to rename this "The War of the Five Kings" when the Greyjoys make their move in season 2?

Since there is no such thing as the War of the Four Kings, but the books call it sometimes the War of the Five Kings, I think we all can assume that it will be renamed in the future. I am not even sure why this article is named as it is at moment, would be better if it had been named Clash of Kings or something like that, but not with a title that does not exists. - Drudenfusz 08:05, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
It was to avoid spoilers. The war does not have five kings at the moment (and that in itself is a spoiler), so we settled on this as a very rough compromise. It's not great, but no other solution really presented itself. 'Clash of Kings' might well be the title of an episode in Season 2, which is why we didn't use that.--Werthead 19:37, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read the books, but I thought the five were: Joffrey, Renly ,Stannis, Roob and Daenerys (actually a queen).--KIWIBOλ 05:14, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

I've had to revert an edit to the page which added spoilers for Season 2. Yes, this title is contentious and I'm not happy about it myself. However, we need a name for the war and this is an adjustment of an existing term from the books. It's an ad hoc measure. Assuming the show follows the books, we should be able to change the title to the 'correct' designation the second the first or second episode of Season 2 has finished airing.--Werthead 18:40, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

The UK magazine SciFiNow has published (in issue 64) a large poster map showing the course of the war in the last few episodes of Season 1 and, interestingly, use the term 'War of the Four Kings' to describe it, indicating the term has got some traction, at least as a stopgap measure.--Werthead 11:39, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Lets keep it that way until Balon rises, or Tywin says the line from the trailer.--Gonzalo84 00:45, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is a reasonable solution until it is no longer necessary.--Opark 77 12:49, March 5, 2012 (UTC)


Daenerys Targaryen wouldn't be considered in this war? She wants the Iron Throne for herself as well. Just a thought. --QueenBuffy35 Crown New Red 09:41, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

She isn't considered a combatant in the source material at this point because her forces have not fought any battles on the continent of Westeros. Should she arrive the maesters would have to reconsider their naming of the conflict. Of course the same was true of Stannis, Renly and Balon until this episode. But Stannis has defeated Renly by assassination and Balon has begun sacking holdfasts in the North so they are now all fully involved.--Opark 77 14:28, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
Should Daenerys spoilers, but Dany hasn't shown up in Westeros as of the recently released Book Five, A Dance With Dragons, though they're kind of building up to that. And the War of the Five Kings is essentially "Act One" of the Three Act structure in the A Song of Ice and Fire series. She officially isn't in the War of the Five Kings, its even in the name. The Targaryen Restoration will be a separate conflict. --The Dragon Demands 15:55, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
Ohhh, okay. Thanks guys! --QueenBuffy35 Crown New Red 17:06, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I hope this has become clear now after Season 3. At this point, after the Red Wedding, the Lannisters have basically won.

Stannis is still a holdout on Dragonstone, his status as the rightful heir of Robert is a thorn in the Lannisters' side, but he has no army left. The only reason they haven't attacked him throughout Season 3 is because so much of the Royal Fleet was destroyed that it's going to be a while before they can mount amphibious attacks. Similarly, the Iron Islands have been doing pretty well for their smug selves so far; "go for the low-hanging fruit" as Balon said. But now that Robb is dead Tywin can turn his attention to them, and they really don't have strong numbers nor are they good at land warfare. They opportunistically succeeded for this long because the Baratheons and Starks were distracting the Lannisters. Now? Judgement time. But that's because Dragonstone and the Iron Islands need to be reached by ship. After the Red Wedding, the Lannisters (along with their allies, the Tyrells, Boltons, and Freys) dominate all of the mainland of the continent.

Anyway, I hope the "three act structure" makes more sense now (the novels were planned as a trilogy but it grew from there). "Act I" was "the War of the Five Kings", and Act III is building up to be "the war against the White Walkers". Now we're on the verge of Act II, and as you can see, Daenerys Targaryen is finally building up to the point where she's starting to be a geo-political power to be reckoned with - her dragons are growing into really usable weapons of war, she has her own armies, etc. She's not strong enough to retake Westeros by the Season 3 finale, of course, but you can really tell that her star is on the rise, she's on the cusp of doing something big. I'm happy that "The Bear and the Maiden Fair (episode)" tried to work this in, having an episode where Joffrey and Tywin are discussing that the last Targaryen is still alive and now has dragons; as the saying goes, it's good politics to worry about the next war even as you're winning the current one.

And of course the Tyrells "helped" the Lannisters....much as the Lannisters "helped" the Baratheons take over from the Targaryens. And look how that turned out. In both cases they ended up becoming dependent on their so-called "help".--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:10, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

"The End" of the War

Given that, which happened in the second half of Book 3 now won't be happening until Season 4, this is a moot point for now; but once we get to those points...

Basically, the Red Wedding ends the Stark-Lannister war, and Stannis was already out after Blackwater - though his very survival remains a threat. The ironborn are fighting for entirely different reasons.

Mild book spoilers, but the Northern armies have been destroyed, and the remaining Riverlords surrender because they've taken huge losses and have no hope of victory - except for House Tully and House Blackwood, though Tywin says they're just hanging on out of pride because they'd rather die than submit to the monsters who committed the Red Wedding and killed Ned Stark. So Brynden Tully is besieged at Riverrun, the Blackwoods are besieged at Raventree Hall, so that "mopping up" drags on for a while, but on the whole the Red Wedding ended that part of the war.

Anyway, given how everything comes to a head in book 3 - which may now be early season 4, I think we need to break up the War of the Five Kings into different articles; the actual "War of the Five Kings" is over, but ongoing conflicts remain. This is loosely what A Wiki of Ice and Fire did.

I'm not sure if the books even still call it "the War of the Five Kings" after the Red Wedding (do they?).

The alternative plan, which I favor (due to not having a real name to give events post-Red Wedding) is to handle the War of the Five Kings much as particularly long, multi-sided wars in real-life history are handled by historians (wars in which certain members changed sides). Like the Hundred Years War or Thirty Years War. Similar to the Wikipedia articles on those long, multi-sided and multi-phase wars, I propose that - only after certain events in early Season 4 - we break up the articles into "War of the Five Kings (Phase I)" and "War of the Five Kings (Phase II)", with House Lannister listed as the winner of Phase I.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:12, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the alternative plan, considering that Stannis and Balon are still on the fight, and we have new upcoming players too spoilery too mention *ahem*Young Griff*ahem*.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 19:08, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

The bastard of Blackfyre? A trifle. But the War never really ended from Stannis' perspective, so I'm more inclined to separate them into "phase I" and "phase II", using the analogy of the real-life Thirty Years War and how it is handled on Wikipedia.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:21, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

The alternative plan is a possible approach, but the war is definitely not over until all of the opposing forces surrender. The Starks have not done that, neither has Stannis or the Greyjoys etc. Even without getting into spoilers, it's clear in the TV series I think that the conflict will remain ongoing for now.--Werthead (talk) 12:15, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. I think that the actual War of the Five Kings ended with the Red Wedding and that the remaining fighting that is happening now is no longer the same war. It wasn't unusual in medieval times for a war to end without all its players being dead before turning into another war. As we see it now, the only true war that is happening in the Seven Kingdoms is Stannis's campaign to conquer Winterfell and, seeing as a page has recently been created on that conflict, we could transfer all the elements that come from now on to that page. As for the rest, namely everything in the part "A tenuous rule", could be considered the war's aftermath, since every thing that happened then is a consequence of the war. Am I the only one who thinks this warrants a change? Bad'Wolf (talk) 18:31, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

Major differences between the books and TV series

It would help if we sort out the major differences of the war between the books and TV series:

  • The most prominent is that to simplify the narrative, the Northern army doesn't split into two groups, a western army led by Robb and an eastern army led by Roose Bolton - roughly 10,000+ footsoldiers under Roose, all of the cavalry, about 6,000 riders, under Robb. Cavalry count as more than footsoldiers so this is still generally "half" of the army. Some more get spread around here and there.-->Instead, at the end of Season 1, Robb sends a feint of only 2,000 men to the Battle of the Green Fork, who all perish, while the bulk of his army goes to Whispering Wood.
  • Rather stupidly, the TV show didn't really think out the repercussions of this well: Robb only had 6,000 Northern cavalry at Whispering Wood, and was outnumbered two to one by Jaime Lannister's army, numbering about 15,000 -- which was about half of the Lannister forces in the Riverlands, as the other half was commanded by Tywin Lannister and numbered almost 20,000 men (including 3,000 Hill Tribesmen). Thus to maintain the drama of "Robb is outnumbered two to one", they simply DOUBLED the size of the entire Lannister standing army: Tywin states in the TV series that they have 60,000 men, and he's giving Jaime half of that, thus Robb's 18,000 men are still outnumbered almost two to one. This is ridiculous, as they didn't proportionately increase the number of troops supplied by every other region of Westeros - i.e. the entire reason that the Tyrell alliance is so important is because they can raise twice as many troops as any other region, almost 70,000 -- the importance of this diminishes when the Lannisters' standing army is doubled. This is one of the things I would directly ask the writers about if ever given the chance.
  • Given that Green Fork was a feint and the army totally destroyed there, Robb's entire army is at Riverrun - now almost doubled because they're reinforced by the Riverlords who officially join Robb after that. Robb launches an invasion of the Westerlands but it is ultimately fruitless, and he returns his army to Riverrun after the Battle of the Blackwater. They solved the problem that the narrative needs Roose to take Harrenhal rather simply: Robb subsequently launches a push east from Riverrun to Harrenhal. They also solved the omission of Arya's role in the fall of Harrenhal easily, by saying the Lannisters are just pursuing a Fabian Strategy and pulled out of Harrenhal without battle. Robb then deposits half of his army at Harrenhal to hold the east flank, while going back with the other half to Riverrun - this bringing the army positions back in line with what they were at this point in the books.
    • As a complete side-note, the Arya storyline in Season 2 was completely mishandled, but there isn't much point complaining now because the TV show already learned its lesson by Season 3 - they have to be willing to just give certain characters a pause for two or even three episodes, as they have such a large cast that others need screentime as well. Somehow they got it into their heads that the fickle TV-first fans consider Tyrion and Arya the "main characters", and thus would invent filler scenes for Arya in Season 2....despite the fact that they actually CUT OUT much of Arya's storyline from the second book. The result were baffling and inconsequential filler scenes which *took badly needed time away from other characters*, and paradoxically, ended up taking time away *from Arya's own storyline* -- why not just but the "Weasel soup" incident in? I think the problem is that they think the audience won't remember things across seasons, thus all of Roose Bolton's stuff at Harrenhal got moved to Season 3. I digress, of course, and thankfully the writers do seem to have learned this lesson by Season 3. Season 1 was a linear story surrounding Ned Stark, and by Season 3 it's apparent that "anyone can die, there is main character" after the Red Wedding. But Season 2 was an odd transitional phase where they thought they had to make stuff up to insert characters into episodes...even though there was plenty in the books they could have fleshed out (particularly, as Linda pointed out on, how the Qarth storyline for episodes 7 and 8 turned into "where are my dragons?!" -- only the utter awesomeness of the Astapor storyline managed to finally burn this internet meme out of the minds of viewers). Sigh. But I digress...
  • The Battle of Ashemark was renamed the Battle of Yellow Fork, apparently because they thought we'd confuse it with the Battle of Ashford. No big crisis here. Also due to the Talisa changes...don't get me started...the Surrender of the Crag was slightly different; but conceptually it still remains "Robb goes on raid from his main force ending up at the Crag".
  • The TV show was stupid to not treat the marriage to Talisa as the political disaster it actually was; Roose openly calling Talisa "Queen" with ZERO REACTION that "dear gods, Robb just ruined our alliance with the Freys"? I was honestly expecting a big dramatic scene where all of the Frey soldiers, 4,000 strong, ride out of camp. INSTEAD, the loss of the Karstarks is treated as a major if to bizarrely make up for the loss of the Freys. They have Robb say that with the Karstarks gone he's lost "half his army" - which we can only badly account for by saying either that he was "speaking loosely" or that he meant "half of my army currently at Riverrun", i.e. 2,000 or so men. The Karstarks can't make up half of the ENTIRE Northern army, that is ludicrous.
  • My understanding was that the Battle of Stone Mill is the TV version of the Battle of the Fords, which was more of a campaign, in which Stone Mill was the central target/where the main thrust under Gregor himself came. Others have argued that Stone Mill was not the exact equivalent of the Battle of the Fords and only consisted of a fraction of the Lannister army under Gregor himself; moreover, that it happened *after* the Battle of the Blackwater. I think the implication is still clear that the "Battle of Stone Mill" happened "off screen" before the Battle of the Blackwater, and that Edmure is telling Robb about it now because they haven't been physically in the same room together for many months.
  • The TV series introduced the minor change that rather than going to the Twins to attempt to retake the North, Robb just wanted to rebuild the Frey alliance so he could strike at Casterly Rock -- given that before, Tywin was at a central location in the Riverlands, but he's now committed his forces to the east to defend King's Landing - thus Robb's only plausible action would be to strike west where he doesn't have any major army groups; even given the difficulty in taking Casterly Rock and siege warfare it is only defended by a skeleton force. While this is a change from the books, the logic is entirely rational, and either way, it doesn't actually happen anyway -- it was all dramatic misdirection so the audience wouldn't realize the Red Wedding was going to happen, would be focused on "Robb the great boy-king is about to make a dramatic counter-attack"...which admittedly sounds better on TV than "at least retake the North"....though of course, the books at this point made a bigger emphasis that Robb has basically lost the war at this point, post-Blackwater post-losing the Freys post-losing the Karstarks. Though at least they do have him yell at Edmure that Stone Mill was a meaningless victory which squandered an opportunity. Things aren't going all that well. Again, dramatic misdirection, I'm all for that, it didn't happen anyway.

Well that was long, the short version is this:

  • The TV show streamlined the movement of armies by having the Battle of the Green Fork be only a feint of 2,000 men, leaving the bulk of Robb's army to attack at Whispering Wood/Riverrun. Robb then invades the Westerlands and returns after Blackwater as in the books. Their solution is that instead of a western army and an eastern army, Robb's main army first goes west, then post-Blackwater goes east to Harrenhal, where he leaves Roose Bolton with a large garrison of half his army, bringing things back in line with the books. Status: Okay - the TV series is at least internally consistent on how these armies moved around.
    • If the Battle of Duskendale occurred in the TV continuity, it has not yet been mentioned. I hold out hope something will be mentioned in Season 4 that Roose intentionally sent Northern soldiers under his command on suicide missions which lost two thirds of the soldiers trusted to his command, to bleed out any Stark supporters. But we shall see.
  • A bad repercussion of streamlining Whispering Wood and Green Fork is that they felt the need to double the total size of all Lannister armies from 30,000 to 60,000, to increase dramatic tension. The fact that this makes the Lannisters drastically more powerful relative to other regions of Westeros is not explored. Also because Robb's army is now 18,000 strong...possibly more or less depending on how many Riverlands soldiers joined him post-Whispering many men were in both armies at the Battle of Oxcross, and how many died? Even a "five to one kill ratio" as mentioned on-screen is too high; practically no Stark soldiers died, it was a massacre of 10,000 green Lannister conscripts. Status: Bad; unresolved and unanswered.. I would directly ask the writers about this.
  • Puzzling references to Robb losing "Half my army" when the Karstarks leave - how are these to be interpreted? Why wasn't more attention given to the fact that 4,000 Frey levies abandoned him before that? Status: Bad and unresolved, though at least given that its armies returning home and disengaging from the war entirely, it isn't all that important; still Robb's line about "half" is puzzling, and I hope we can lampshade/reinterpret it to just mean "a lot" or "half my current garrison at this castle". I would ask a writer about this.
  • Did the Battle of Stone Mill take place before or after the Battle of the Blackwater? If it occurred before it is much closer to the Battle of the Fords in the books, involving Tywin's main army with Gregor commanding a major subsection, and Edmure's "victory" at Stone Mill kept the Lannisters pent up in the Riverlands and thus within enough distance from King's Landing to reach there in time to win the Battle of the Blackwater. Occurring after the Battle of the Blackwater means it only involved a fraction of Lannister forces under Gregor Clegane's command, and Robb was just looking for a tactical victory to remove a major enemy commander/chip away at their forces.

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:34, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

We must also consider the season 2 bluray War of the 5 Kings feature that brings the Battle of the Camps into canon, as well as the liberation of Raventree Hall and Stone Hedge under the Greatjon's leadership.

Also, you can ask the writers via the Ask a Writer feature: [1]

--Gonzalo84 (talk) 02:52, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Well I tried using WiC's Ask A Writer but they filter out the "boring" questions; even the one I managed to get through to Cogman about "Is Jaehaerys II cut?" was met with a simple "yes". But I'm not too concerned about Raventree/Stonehedge and Camps - those just happened "off screen" - it did bring them into canon, thankfully, but didn't really change too much.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:29, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

A Couple of Things about the Infobox

Hey, I've noticed a couple of things that need to be changed/added to the infobox for the leaders/combatants. For the King in the North column, shouldn't there be a note indicating that Houses Frey and Bolton switched sides or does the fact that such notes are there for the King on the Iron Throne sufficient? Also, shouldn't the pirate lord (forgot his name) that aided Stannis be listed? For the leaders section: Lord Hoster Tully needs to be listed under Robb while Ser Gregor Clegane needs to be listed under Joffrey. Thanks. TheUnknown285 (talk) 18:50, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns are valid. This is going to be one of our longest and largest pages, given that it summarizes so much of the plot. Major overhauls are due. I'm personally in lockdown due to thesis work. I can check in on the daily edits for quality control but a full revamp of the war article is a massive undertaking...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:14, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Overhauling the article

I have updated the article to include a new section for the turncoats and oathbreakers.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 04:17, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

I do not have time to launch into a massive overhaul at the moment. But I must point out that the "combatants" section has grown unruly. It should only be a brief paragraph or two summation for each king on why they entered the war and their initial dispositions. Instead, we've got a description of Robb's ENTIRE storyline throughout the entire war - which is redundant with the actual core section of the article.

This isn't that difficult, use AWOIAF's version as a rough basis for how to assemble this...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:36, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else having trouble previewing this article?

Maybe because of its length, I can never get this article to preview my edits.  So I have to do it basically blind and hope I don't screw it up and have to go back.  TheUnknown285 (talk) 13:39, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

House Forrester

Hey, i just want to requst that you put House Forrester as one of the helping combatants. They are sworn to House Glover and helped House Stark alot in the War Of The Five Kings. 

To keep the infobox on that page from getting cluttered - and it is already massive - we're just listing the major factions. So "House Stark" stands in for all of their vassals (unless a vassal such as House Florent switches sides to someone other than their usual overlord).

I don't wish to bump a dead horse, but House Whitehill sided with the Boltons, who switched sides, so does that justify adding them. Plus, it seems that this page has all the major vassals and some minor ones, the Forresters included. So yeah. InGen Nate Kenny (talk) 21:52, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck if it's not in the show it's the same universe

Formatting Mess

The infobox is a mess right now, much worse than before. Any idea how we can fix this? - InGen Nate Kenny (talk) 03:43, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

  • Not going to lie, I think what it was before is the best that can be achieved for now. It was the easiest for reading the quick information, and it wasn't that big of a problem, in my opinion. Reddyredcp (talk) 03:55, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
I've told The Dragon Demands about this but as he's ill I'm not sure what more can be done... aside from contacting Wikia support directly. For the record, this is a result of the new "mobile friendly" infoboxes that Wikia have rolled out, so it's not a simple case of switching back to the old ones... although I do agree that these new ones don't suit the needs of battle/conflict articles at all! - Xanderen signature 16:17, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Need Wikia support's help.

One suggestion I've had for a while: on the basis of articles on for real-life multi-sided wars such as the Thirty Years War, I think it might work better to shift from FIVE categories to only THREE: "Lannister", "Anti-Lannister", and "Ironborn".

"Anti-Lannister" includes Robb Stark and allies, Stannis & Co., and Renly & Co. Renly wanted to outright ally with the Starks. Stannis considered the Starks traitors but never acted on it whatsoever, and later allies with Northern Houses (in the books) to fight off the Boltons. The only thing of note was that Stannis fought Renly, but there wasn't really a pitched battle, just assassination(s).

Thus, barring some bickering and infighting, this wasn't really executed as a five-way war, but as a three-way war in practice: "The Lannisters", "everyone opposed to the Lannisters" (Stark-Tully, both Baratheons), and the ironborn (who attacked the Starks, and in the novels at least Stannis fought, and will soon attack the west coasts to attack Lannister/Tyrell as well.

At the least, I think it would make it a lot clearer to have three columns instead of five. It really strains the display template.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:51, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be better to have the three categories be "Iron Throne" "Rival Claimants" and "Independence Movements". "Iron Throne" being Joffrey/Tommen (House Baratheon of King's Landing/House Lannister and friends) "Rival Claimants" the Baratheon Bros (Stannis and Renly) and "Independence Movements" being the North/Iron Islands, since that's what the war was about, in essence, two rival claimants for the Iron Throne against the incumbent ruler, and two independence movements. Regardless of which way we do it, I do believe there should be three columns instead of either two or five. Salociin (talk) 21:23, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

...."independence movements" might work...but thinking on it, that would ignore that fact that the ironborn stupidly attack the independent North. It's not just two independence movements fighting the Lannisters but a crazy multi-sided war.

I am...provisionally going to make it "Lannisters" "anti-Lannister forces", and "ironborn", though only because the current version is utterly illegible. This is purely a stop-gap measure. The template still needs much work.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:26, April 22, 2016 (UTC)


The infobox was already a severe problem before Wikia updated the templates so infoboxes display better on mobile devices. The update only added to our woes on this very complicated page, because instead of using "word wrap" pushing full words down to the next line, it instead bizarrely uses a whole lot of hyphens.

The lower "tier" you use in hierarchical lists, the less space it uses that tier 4 stuff was quite literally a SINGLE LETTER on each line.


The new emphasis is on legibility for end-user ease of access. Hardcore regular wiki-editors know this information and can write down a full list of all vassals; the infobox is for casual readers to understand at a glance "Lannister vs Stark" not "Lannnisters, and their vassals Crakehall and Marbrand, versus the Starks, and their vassals the Mormonts and Manderlys" - the infobox just can't hold that much stuff.

Steps I'm going to take as a stop-gap measure to improve the infobox (just a quick fix to make it something vaguely functional) include:

1 - Two columns instead of five

I'd really hoped for three columns: either "Lannister forces/Anti-Lannister forces/Ironborn" or "Lannister/Anti-Lannister/Independence Movements".

That might have worked under the old template. But I tried it out, and even three columns for "Iron Islands" drastically shortened the width of each column, which in turn would make words cut off hyphenated onto the next line, forming an illegible mess. It was easier to lump everything into "Anti-Lannister" and mention in the title "at times fighting each other" (MOST combat was against Lannister forces, ironborn notwithstanding).

Adding full titles like "Hand of the King" or "Lord Paramount of the Westerlands" was also so long that it strained the infobox template, these had to be removed as well.

2 - Avoid tiered headers (using asterisks) whenever possible.

Wiki-code in normal article text lets you make tiered lists using asterisks: start with one asterisk, then double asterisks makes a subordinate list to that one, and so on. In normal articles we can often use up to level three (three asterisks), maybe level four, before it starts getting difficult to read.

In contrast, because of the new mobile template, making it a lower tier tells it "there is less available space on this line"....which, in turn, pushes half of words hyphenated down to the next line! Which is extremely difficult to read.

So while the original list would place "House Lannister" at Tier 1....the new plan is to not use bulleted list points for Tier 1 things. Now I just put "House Lannister" and two lines below them "House Tyrell" etc (needs to be two lines so their sigil images don't overlap). From context you can tell who is subordinated.

Also, generally avoiding tiered lists whenever possible:

In the new mobile template, even with only two columns, anything below Tier 1 bullet points looks weird. We might, and I mean maybe once, use a Tier 2 double-asterisk bullet point. But really it messes everything up: even so short a name as "House Umber" gets shoved onto two lines, hyphenated "Hou-se Umber" as a result (due to the sigil image).

3 - We can't list ALL identified vassals of every major House!

I was taking a hands-off approach to this page, but now I see that the infobox listed every known vassal of a major House: "Crakehall" and "Marbrand" listed under "Lannister".

Okay guys, "Lannister" as a faction includes their vassals.

The only exceptions are vassals who changed sides or left (i.e. Karstark in Season 3). I'm listing the Umbers still because as in the books, they will be split between factions in Season 6.

This alone A - made the infobox ridiculously long (some of these vassals haven't even been named in dialogue, only maps), and B making use of "Tier 4" headers (four asterisks) made it truly illegible).


The result is that we're going to try to:

  • 1 - Use only two columns, though we can make internal divisions with simple lines,
  • 2 - Heavily avoid using tiered lists: start with no bullet point at all, desperately try to avoid using Level 2 bullet points at all, only going to Tier 1 bullet points.
  • 3 - Wow, FULL lists of all vassal for every faction were included in the original version, which didn't even display well before the mobile template update.

I have finished with the update/redesign.'

Unless we discuss major changes to the infobox on the talk page here, DO NOT alter anything, and please on your own initiative remove any other alterations (i.e. anyone adding back in Crakehall or Forrester or whatever). It's long enough as it is.

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:29, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Looks better than it ever has before! Removing tiered lists and vassal tiers I feel really did a world of difference. Could I ask why some of the Lords were removed such as Randyll Tarly and Mace Tyrell for Renly, and Hoster Tully for Robb, since from what I can tell it didn't really affect the display too much. Too long I presume?

While I won't mess with that, could I add a single space between the last letter of a character's name and the dagger symbol to denote those killed or dead, the same way Wikipedia itself does for battle and war infoboxes?



I previewed to make sure, and it doesn't mess up or change the format at all from the way it is now, and it just looks better I feel. Salociin (talk) 16:35, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Oh sure, add the spaces.

Yes the right column was drastically longer than the left one; I didn't put Mace and Randyll under that because they weren't featured too prominently under Renly for too long, and they already appear on the left hand side, so it was kind of redundant (I'd rather leave a note on the left side, makes it less lopsided).

ah...screw it, might as well put those two back in...

As for Hoster Tully...length was part of it, but also because even by book/Season 1 he was basically bedridden and near-catatonic before dying of old age, and Edmure was the functional ruler of House Tully for some time already.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:38, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Dornish Involvement?

Should Sand Snake-occupied Dorne really be considered one of the factions in the War of the Five Kings? Personally, I feel that the war should be considered to only be between The King on the Iron Throne, the King in the Narrow Sea, the King in Highgarden, the King in the North, and the King of the Iron Isles. Outside of those five factions warring with any of each other, any other conflicts should be considered separate. If Dorne goes to war with the King on the Iron Throne, that should be a war specifically between Dorne and House Baratheon of King's Landing/House Lannister, rather than a part of the War of the Five Kings. Salociin (talk) 13:08, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. At this point, it's speculation to assume that the Sand Snakes/Dorne are apart of the same conflict. Likely, it's the start of a new one, even if it is occurring concurrently with the War of the Five Kings (since the Iron Islands are still involved). Reddyredcp (talk) 17:49, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
Really, we're adding back Dorne? It's the War of the FIVE KINGS. Also, isn't the North under Ramsay effectively in open rebellion against the Crown as well? If Dorne must be added and this turned into a free-for-all mega-war, then the name of the article should at least be changed to reflect this. Though at this point, given how things have turned out, I'd consider the War of Five Kings to have ended with the surrender of Riverrun and make a new "War for Westeros" article or some-such for the other conflicts. Salociin (talk) 23:32, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Bastards

As House Bolton is no longer allied to House Lannister, I believe the upcoming clash between them and the Starks must be seen as separate from the War of the Five Kings. What do other users think? --CrappyScrap (talk) 13:44, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

I'd support this. Personally, I'd consider the war all but completely over aside from House Tully's continued resistance and the Iron Island's independence. I'd love to be able to move the Stark/Wildling/Mormont etc. stuff to a new article, and keep Robb's faction defunct. I feel the constant need to keep every Westerosi clash of arms tied to the WotFK is unnecessary. Salociin (talk) 21:59, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

I think it is unclear if this is technically a separate conflict or not, but your reasoning does make sense. I think we should put a vote to it unless it is made clear by the showrunners or GRRM. Reddyredcp (talk) 22:15, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Between Jon's war and Dorne, and the Brotherhood's continued involvement against the crown, I'd strongly recommend a vote to be held to decide if these new conflicts should be considered part of the War of the Five Kings, or a new war. Salociin (talk) 23:33, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

So, are we allowed to call for a vote ourselves, or does an admin need to be present? If the latter, requesting admin presence! Reddyredcp (talk) 00:01, June 14, 2016 (UTC)
An admin needs to call for it, I believe. Hopefully The Dragon Demands will be willing to help out and settle the issue, since he single-handedly revamped this article when it was in dire need of saving.
I would, with the sole exception of Brynden's resistance at Riverrun, consider the WotFK to end with the death of King Balon, and now that Brynden is dead and Riverrun has fallen, the war completely over. I'd create a new article for the conflicts between the Iron Throne and the new rebel factions, or specifically, Dorne, the North under House Bolton, the North under House Stark, and the Iron Islands. A subsection of the article could elaborate on the Brotherhood without Banners as well. Salociin (talk) 04:06, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
I made a hypothetical war infobox for what a separate article for post-War of the Five Kings conflict may look like on my account blog. Note that it's purely for speculation and experimentation, but I thought I'd put it up to put some ideas out there. Salociin (talk) 09:39, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
I think they are going to be divided up into separate conflicts unless stated otherwise. For example, there will be the Conflict in the North, Dornish Conflict, etc. There's nothing really to indicate that they are all connected, other than the fact that House Baratheon of King's Landing and House Lannister are involved to a certain extent in all of them. Reddyredcp (talk) 23:48, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
Well, users seem incredibly determined to force all of these conflicts into the War of the Five Kings, so it may not come to that at all. I think there is simply way too much information in the infobox, there is simply no reason to have no many houses and commanders. Salociin (talk) 04:46, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

End of the War?

After the battle of the bastards, can we  give by finished the War of the 5 kings? Spanish assassin (Talk) 18:27, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

No, not really. The Lannisters still have to respond with the retaking of Winterfell. Only if peace is declared between the fighting factions, then the war is officially over. Lord Sharky (talk) House-Bolton-Main-Shield PINK is the new Black 19:08, June 20, 2016 (UTC)
Well, with this logic, it's also important to keep in mind that the Iron Islands are still fighting for independence. Euron Greyjoy claims to be king, and Yara Greyjoy might still claim to be queen. Reddyredcp (talk)
Ok, now we have Daenerys invading Westeros with Tyrell, Dorne, her own and Greyjoy Yara faction army, so she should be in infobox, now. 22:31, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
I think it's going to get a bit too convoluted. In my opinion, even with the Tyrells, Greyjoys (other than Euron and his followers), and Dornish on her side, Daenerys' invasion should be a separate conflict. We can simply say that part of the War of the Five Kings spilled over into this new war, which will likely be short-lived anyway (Dany doesn't have much resistance facing her).
If you all agree, I can start working on this. Reddyredcp (talk) 04:05, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
I've made a theoretical page on my sandbox. Reddyredcp (talk) 08:14, July 1, 2016 (UTC)
I am here only little new smallfolk, but agree. Its sound much better, then classic editation of this already massive conflict (despite my initial idea).Good luck. 07:26, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
Question: Is it possible to make an infobox collapsible? In the way that the details are currently, could the entire infobox be made like this? Or at least, could each category in the infobox, such as factions and commanders, be made to do this? Because if so, I feel the best option by far would be to make two infoboxes, for Phase I and Phase II of the conflict, (Before the death of Balon and after the death of Balon for us) since this is exactly what the wiki has, (their entire infoboxes can be collapsed) except their end point for Phase I is Tywin's Assassination I believe, though for the show I think Balon's would be better. They include Aegon's faction in Phase II, for example, while removing the defunct factions, so we could have, for Phase II, Daenery's faction while removing Stannis's, and Renly's. It'd also just MASSIVALY clean up all of the Commanders, and the defections, and pre-this battle and post-this battle and post-this event and that event, and so on and so on, and make it easier to have bigger shields as well. Salociin (talk) 06:48, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
I've added on my blog what the two separate infoboxes might look like and how they could be set up, the only problem is it'd be nice to be able to collapse them, or at least parts of them. Salociin (talk) 08:32, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, second one is better, because even with great tolerance, it is very hard to call it even "pyrrhic victory". It is total catastrophe for Lannisters. I think, until next season second infobox is better and then, should be create separate "Daenerys invasion" page. Till that, information about Daenerys joining the war is acceptable. 04:41, July 1, 2016 (UTC)
I like the proposal of Reddyredcp Spanish assassin (Talk) 15:19, July 1, 2016 (UTC)
The War of the Five Kings should be considered officially over with the Death of Balon. All current and future conflicts are separate: Jon is leading the North, the Freefolk, and the Vale against the White Walkers, not the crown; Cersei may be sitting on the Iron Throne, but I doubt she will ever get around to marshaling the Lannister armies against him - Daenerys will have touched down long before; and Euron's plan (as he described it) is to support Danny in order to become her husband and consort - he wants to rule Westeros, not the Isles. Everything going forward is a new chapter. - Xanderen signature 13:30, July 2, 2016 (UTC)
Euron claimed Balon "lead us into two wars we couldn't win". His intention is hardly to continue an unwinnable war, but rather start a new one. --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 14:01, July 2, 2016 (UTC)
How should we divide up the new conflicts then? They are clearly not connected. I feel like we should have one for "Conflict in the North" - I would not yet state that the White Walkers are involved as they are still beyond the Wall. It should be the Bolton-Stark conflict. One should be created for Daenerys' invasion/campaign as well, which Euron's war should probably be apart of. Or, as I said in another discussion, we could divide the War of the Five Kings into separate phases, similar to AWOIAF. What do you all think? By the way, I made some theoretical pages reflecting these on my sandbox. Obviously I'm not saying we have to use these, but I made them in my free time just to give a visual idea. Reddyredcp (talk) 14:47, July 2, 2016 (UTC)
The "Conflict in the North" is already divided. I suggest letting the "Battle of the Bastards" be its own, separate conflict, unless of course other battles were fought between the Starks and the Boltons on the show. But it is important to note that both were in rebellion against the crown when the Battle of the Bastards was fought, making it an internal northern conflict - or civil war, if you will.
Even in the unlikely event that the WotFK continues, the Free Folk and House Arryn should be kept out of the infobox until they fight someone who's allied to one of the combatants. The Boltons had already broken their ties with the Lannisters, and it remains to be seen whether the Starks will choose to renew the war with the crown. I personally eye a "War of the Two Queens", with the Starks backing you-know-who, but that's just speculation on my part. Bottom line, the WotFK ended with the Second Siege of Riverrun, with the possible exception of the continued insurgency by the Brotherhood Without Banners. --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 23:19, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

The term "War of the Five Kings" hasn't been used since the Purple Wedding. Why not consider the WotFK itself a "first phase" of a broader, continent-wide conflict? How about we create a new umbrella article that combines the "phases" (WotFK included) of this wider war? We can title it "Civil war in the Seven Kingdoms" or anything of the same order. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:08, July 14, 2016 (UTC)

Combatants (again)

This is really getting out of hand.

The upcoming Targaryen reconquest, the Battle of the Bastards and the Faith Militant crackdown have -absolutely nothing- to do with the War of the Five Kings. House Bolton had rebelled against the crown before facing the new Stark army, and was thus not allied to any of the combatants of the War of the Five Kings when the Battle of the Bastards was fought. The Targaryens haven't even landed yet, and whenever they do, there's still no reason to assume it will be part of the War of the Five Kings. Kings. --CrappyScrap (talk) 13:32, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

I am new here, but i agree, we can say that the war of the five kings ended when the last of the five Kings died. Riverrun is clearly aftermatch. I was trying to read the article and got confused. "King Jon Snow" a commander on the war of the five kings? IMO if there is a new conflict between the new Queens Cersei ,Dany and Kings like Jon and Euron there should be a new article. Faith Militant also has nothing to do with this war.Basickk (talk) 14:47, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "War of the Five Kings" is just a name for the civil war that's been going on in Westeros since Robert died. So anything or anyone that opposes the Iron Throne should be considered part of it, even if it's not direct opposition. Reviving an independent kingdom is certainly opposing the Iron Throne. DaenerysTheMadKhal58 (talk) 17:25, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

The Battle of the Bastards was an internal Northern conflict, as both sides had rebelled against the crown. If the Starks and the Arryns clash with the Lannisters, I'll reconsider. But right now, the war between the Starks and the Lannister is over. The Targaryen invasion has not yet happened, and is completely unrelated to the post-Robert civil war. As for the Faith Militant, I suppose no explanation is needed. --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 20:50, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

I'd call the war over with the death of Balon Greyjoy, my suggestion about the second Infobox was just an alternative because everyone else seemed to insist the war is not over. Either way, we need to resolve this. The Infobox has gotten way out of hand.

I'd say either end the conflict and create a new page for the Targaryen invasion, and then merge any relevant information about Riverrun, the Battle of the Bastards, the Sept explosion, etc. into their respective articles and make them separate from the War of Five Kings, my first and preferred fix...

OR, split the infobox in two, one for everything pre-Balon's death, and one for everything post-Balon's death, that way it's still all part of the same conflict, but the infobox is cleaned up and not as much of a mess. No more King Jon Snow in the exact same infobox as King Joffrey Baratheon. No more having literally every house having changed sides about twenty different times with all the text to explain it. No more having forty commanders under the Iron Throne in a single infobox because of all the dead characters piling up with a cross next to every other name. Either way, we need to do something. Salociin (talk) 07:51, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

I've made several pages on my sandbox for theoretical conflicts. Alternatively, however, I think two infoboxes could work as well - something that AWOIAF does is divide the war into two separate phases. This could work here as well, I suppose. See here. Reddyredcp (talk) 11:15, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Salociin, the upcoming Targaryen invasion needs a separate article. The only thing I disagree on is the Second Siege of Riverrun being separate - unlike the other conflicts mentioned, the siege was clearly a continuation of the Lannister war in the Riverlands. --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 13:07, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

I say we table the issue; if it is a new and separate conflict it won't have an article until we see Daenerys arriving in Westeros itself.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:07, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - but what about the rest? --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 07:25, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

My idea is: Use of War of Five Kings as a catchall. With two infobox; Phase I and II. With conflicts arising from the second phase in other pages; Conflict in the North ( campaign of Stannis and the battle Bastards), fighting against the Faith, etc.
And the drift of this war: the Targaryen invasion.
Sorry for my English :) Spanish assassin (Talk) 09:02, July 4, 2016 (UTC)
War of Five Kings:
Phase I: War in Riverlands, Renly-Stannis (Blackwater, etc) Rise of Kraken and Red wedding
        Result: Pyrrhic victory. Lannister-Baratheon of King's Landing
Phase II: Campaign of the North (Castle Black, Stannis and Battle of Bastards), purple wedding, balon death and Kingsmoot, coup in Dorne, Conflict with the Faith and phase ii of war of riverlands (Black fish, cake of frey...)
       Result: Inconclusive. drift in the invasion targaryen
Spanish assassin (Talk) 09:41, July 4, 2016 (UTC)
The Battle of Castle Black has got nothing to do with the War of the Five Kings. Why are users so hellbent on squeezing every armed conflict into its frame? --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 22:29, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion page. I am in my right to make proposals.
As for the Battle of Castle Black ... Well, it was the beginning of the campaign of the north. Stannis sits on the Castle Black and the Free Folk would eventually be integrated in the army of Jon. Spanish assassin (Talk) 07:29, July 5, 2016 (UTC)
I have a pretty simple take on this. Unless a house/faction is allied/aligned to one of the five kings and fighting at least 'one' of the others, whatever battles they fight are not part of the War of the Five Kings. The first criteria excludes post-Sansa-Ramsay wedding Boltons, the Free Folk, the Targaryens and the Faith Militant, as they are not allied to one of the five kings. If we assume Jon will continue Robb's war, the Arryns are still left out by this criteria, as they've only fought the Boltons. Does this make sense to anyone other than me? --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 13:02, July 5, 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. "War of the Five Kings" is just the name of a large, multi-theater conflict Fought in Westeros. In real historical wars the same principles are used; "Seven Years' War" (which includes the French and Indian War despite last 9 years), "The Great War or World War I" (although only the WW II was strictly global) etc.
In the same way "strictly" never was a war of five kings, Balon entered the conflict after the death of Renly.
And one more point; Roose Bolton showed the concern about a confrontation with the Lannister and Cersei Lannister asked for them and Sansa repression, but "de jure" the crown never broke relations with Bolton and did not start an open conflict.
Spanish assassin (Talk) 13:26, July 5, 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the Boltons were nevertheless not allies of any southerners by the time of the Battle of the Bastards, so the Stark-Bolton showdown was an internal northern conflict. The War of the Five Kings had five sides with very specific aims; three kings fighting for the same throne, two fighting for independence. Robb's war ended with the rise of House Bolton, Balon's war ended with the Second Battle of Deepwood Motte, Renly's war ended before it even begun, Stannis died at Winterfell, and at this point, Tommen was in power. The War of the Five Kings is not a vague umbrella term, and I fail to see any rationale to include the Faith Militant, the Targaryens, the Free Folk, etc. --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 15:25, July 5, 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about phases

So since this is now the system we're doing I guess, we should discuss them a little bit. What defines a phase? Under what phase does each conflict within the war fall under? When does a particular phase end? Do they overlap each other? etc. I'll add my personal thoughts in a bit when I can. Reddyredcp (talk) 21:11, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

Phase I: War in Riverlands, Renly-Stannis (Blackwater, etc) Rise of Kraken and Red wedding
        Result: Pyrrhic victory. Lannister-Baratheon of King's Landing
Phase II: Campaign of the North (Castle Black, Stannis and Battle of Bastards), purple wedding, balon death and Kingsmoot, coup in Dorne, Conflict with the Faith and phase ii of war of riverlands (Black fish, cake of frey...)
       Result: Inconclusive. drift in the invasion targaryen
Spanish assassin (Talk) 21:19, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier above, it would probably be best to consider the War of the Five Kings itself an initial "phase" of a broader civil war, beginning with Robb's rebellion and ending with the death of Stannis (the last of the five kings). Take a look at the Italian Wars and Napoleonic Wars on Wikipedia, and you'll see what I mean. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:21, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

I agree, except I think it ended when the last Ironborn were repelled from the North. The only exception is the Second Siege of Riverrun - although it was fought after everyone assumed the war to be over, it was fought between two of the original combatants.
Regardless of the date, this madness with forcing every single conflict in Westeros into the War of the Five Kings needs to stop. The Targaryens (who haven't even landed yet) is bad enough, but what the heck does the Faith Militant do here?
This should have been fixed a long time ago. As far as I know, there was never any consensus either. What happened to "be bold"? --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 04:12, July 18, 2016 (UTC)
I know the infobox is getting out of hand and needs dealing with, but making up our own fanon is not the right way to handle this. There's no basis whatsoever for this whole "Phase" thing. The War of the Five Kings is over; the "five kings" are all dead, and the remnants of their kingdoms have all submitted and/or are under new leadership.
The Battle of the Bastards was a single battle, and not part of any wider conflict.
The Rise of the Sparrows (conjecture) is a separate political uprising that solely affected King's Landing.
The Targaryen restoration is an invasion spearheaded by someone who was not involved in the WotFK.

Xanderen signature 08:34, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

I'll agree to this. The war is over, and any battle that follows should not be considered part of it. But who gets to decide these things? If more battles follow in the North and/or in the Riverlands during the next season(s), we may create a new war article. For example, we still don't know what happens in the Dreadfort. The "phases" were meant to organize this mess (and, in my opinion, better than nothing). But we can postpone this proposal till the next season if it's too controversial. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:55, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
Since consensus seems to have swayed in our favor, why can't things be changed? --CrappyScrapHouse-Dayne-Main-Shield 08:09, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

House Bolton as a former faction

I think House Bolton be added as a former faction, namely as a sub-section for House Baratheon of King's Landing. Godzillavkk 7/15/16.

Combatants (for the 'nth time...

...can we finally throw out the Targaryens and the Faith Militant? I've yet to see anyone justify their presence in the infobox. The Targaryens haven't landed yet, and the Faith Militant was never at war with any of the great houses (no, looting and acting like a**hats isn't war). --CrappyScrapCrappyScrap-Shield 01:24, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

This page is a mess

It's cluttered, the infobox (and the article in general) is somewhat difficult to read, it's poorly organized. I think we really need to sort out this article seeing as it is fairly important. We need to determine a few things, though, such as: What conflicts are considered to be part of the WOTFK? When does the WOTFK end? Has it ended? Is the name arbitrary, or should we consider it over when the last of the five kings died? How should the Sparrows, the Targaryens, the Battle of the Bastards, etc. be handled?

I've made a mock-up of what I think would be best for this page. Problem is, I don't know how much it strictly adheres to the "canon" of the television show since it really hasn't been made clear... Reddyredcp (talk) 19:34, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

The WOTFK ended with the Second Siege of Riverrun, the last battle directly related to the original Stark-Lannister conflict.
The Battle of the Bastards was an internal Northern conflict, as both the Starks and the Boltons had rebelled against the crown. House Bolton was no longer an ally of the Lannisters, shown by Cersei's willingness to let Littlefinger topple them with the Knights of the Vale.
The Sparrows didn't fight a single armed battle, and their brief reemergence can hardly be considered a war (or even a military conflict). They should be kept out.
The Targaryens haven't even landed yet. When they do, that'll be a new war. --CrappyScrapCrappyScrap-Shield 15:33, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Tyrell vs. Stark?

In the books, Tyrell vassals take part in fighting the Stark forces alongside the Lannisters, with Randyll Tarly taking part in one of the battles. In the series, I remember Lady Olenna once complaining to Tywin that Northerners are killing Tyrell soldiers because of their new alliance. Is there any more information on this in the series? --CrappyScrapCrappyScrap-Shield 17:09, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the Page in Two

While is nice to see this page get some badly needed reorganization the main problem still remains. Events that are not part of the War of the Five Kings are still here. I think the main issue is that, like many real life wars, the War of the Five Kings has a very messy ending. A clear ending to the war needs to be established and everything after that moved onto its own page. Events like the fight for the North, rise of the Sparrows, and rise of new rulers should either be given their own pages or put into a new one that covers the post-war uneasy peace until Daenerys starts her invasion.

Personaly I would say that the War of the Five Kings effectively ends with the Red Wedding. The main point of the war was to either take over or break away from the Iron Throne. With the fall of House Stark at the Red Wedding the Lannisters have beaten back all challangers and reestablished control over most of the realm. The Iron Born are still rebelling but they are focused on the North and not considered a major threat to the realm as a whole. From the fall of the Starks until Daenerys arrives we have a period where the main war is over but there is still conflict. Not sure what the official name for this period will be but I would go with The False Peace or The Troubled Peace. Wilahelm02 (talk) 06:05, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

Finding a definitive agreement

I believe that the time has come to resolve the controversy over this article and reach a definitive agreement.

I think there are only two main options; Use "War of the Five Kings" to cover both the main war (until the red wedding) and the rest of events as late stage. More or less as it is now. Something that has been criticized by many users like User: CrappyScrap.

The second option is equally controversial but I think it is more acceptable to create a second article as proposed in the previous point. Post-WOTFK style, etc., which includes the conflicts derived from this war; Cup in Dorne, Campaign of Stannis in the North, Battle of Bastards, purple wedding, ballon death and Kingsmoot,, Conflict with the Faith and phase of war of riverlands (Black fish, cake of frey ...).

Spanish assassin (Talk) 22:01, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Should the localized conflicts get their own seperate pages

It is my opinion that the localizecd conflicts such as the War in the North should get their own pages to avoid confusion. Godzillavkk 9/6/17, 20:34.

I don't think it's necessary, and to be honest, I'm not sure why they were given infoboxes in the first place... they're "part" of the War of the Five Kings, in a way, but also, as described in the article, are more derivative from the war and are typically only one-two events. War for the North was the Battle of the Bastards, the Rise of the Sparrows didn't really have battles and was a sort of political struggle (barring the sept explosion), and the Dornish conflict had an assassination. All of these can be summed up on their respective pages. That's why when I was drafting the rewrite for the article, I styled it in the form of summaries over these "aftermath conflicts." Basically... they're intertwined with the War of the Five Kings, but formally take place after the war is officially concluded. If that makes any sense... the whole thing is sort of confusing, but I think it's the most accurate we can get for now. Reddyredcp (talk) 01:49, September 7, 2017 (UTC)