Talk:Daenerys Targaryen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dany has her own page

... as well she should. Though I am generally wary of the proliferation of pages for each and every single character in A Song of Ice and Fire, the mother of dragon certainly deserves her own page. The information for Dany was split over two pages (residing on House Targaryen, whereto I moved it earlier from Aerys Targaryen). There was lots of good stuff there, and I have copied it to this talk page instead of just deleting it. Itneeds to be merged with the current page by some diligent soul. Arbor 16:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • If the general consensus (among the three of us, at least) is that Dany deserves her own page, why do we still have that proposed-merge tag on the top? I happen to think she's the most important character in the novels, with Jon Snow second--oh, how interesting, they both have separate pages! But I also realize it'd be difficult to fit them into existing pages. Where would we put Jon? House Stark? A new page for the Night's Watch? Likewise, where would we put Dany, the last scion of a defunct house? She'd dominate House Targaryen's page. So, for reasons of practicality and for plot significance, I like the fact that both of them are stand-alone pages. Now I just have to wait for A Dance with Dragons to come out... Marblespire 23:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Since no one seems to be pushing for a merge anymore, and the article is of decent length now, I've removed the merge tag. Brendan 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I really don't see why Dany should be the only character with a separate page. She's more important in-universe, but not in the real world. Arya, Tyrion, and Jon are more popular (according to GRRM), and probably have more pages to their name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.56.40 (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Old Dany section from House Targaryen

Interesting similarity in the name: Deïanira or Dejanira (pronounced /ˌdeɪ.əˈnaɪərə/,[1] Ancient Greek: Δηϊάνειρα, [dɛːiáneːra], or Δῃάνειρα; Deïaneira "man-destroyer"[2] or "destroyer of her husband"[3]) is a figure in Greek mythology, best known for being Heracles' second wife and, in the late Classical story, unwittingly killing him with the Shirt of Nessus. She is the main character in the play Women of Trachis by Sophocles. Deianira is also the name of a second character in Greek mythology, an Amazon killed by Heracles during his ninth labour, the quest for the girdle of Hippolyta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.220.252 (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Daenerys was Aerys II’s sole surviving daughter, called Daenarys Stormborn, the Unburnt, Khaleesi to Khal Drogo, Mother of Dragons. Had silver-gold hair and purple eyes (GOT, 27). Ser Willem Darry, Master-at-Arms for King’s Landing (SOS, 91) and four loyal men took Daenerys and Viserys from Dragonstone to the Braavosian Coast when it was learned that the garrison was prepared to sell the children to Baratheon forces (GOT, 25).

Plot

Sold by her brother Viserys to Khal Drogo, son of Bharbo (GOT, 496) and married to the Khal (GOT, 27, 82) becoming the khaleesi. Khal Drogo had a khalasar of 100,000 men (GOT, 94). Served loyally and faithfully by Ser Jorah Mormont, an exiled lord of Bear Island (GOT, various), dubbed Lord Commander of her Queensguard (GOT, 669). He did serve, in secret, Varys, Master of Whispers for a good while (GOT, SOS, 652-653). Mormont fought for the North during Robert’s Rebellion (SOS, 652). She was served by three handmaidens, Doreah, Irri, and Jhiqui (GOT, 85). Doreah died while crossing the great red waste after the death of her husband and birth of her dragons (COK, 145-146). Given three dragon eggs as a wedding gift from Master Illyrio during her wedding feast (GOT, 85). Endured intolerable cruelty by her brother throughout her life. Pregnant at the age of 13 (GOT, 199) with her son, Rhaego, thought to be the Dothraki prophesized “Stallion who Mounts the World“ (GOT, 411). Lost the baby to a miscarriage. (GOT, 631-632) Stood and watched her husband Khal Drogo slaying her brother, Viserys, at Vaes Dothrak (GOT, 417-418). Survived an assassination attempt at Vaes Dothrak’s Western Market (GOT, 493-494). Attempted to hatch one of her dragon eggs after the attempted assassination (GOT, 495). Took great pride in her name and family with sayings such as “The Dragon does not fear”; (GOT, 494). Became a widow when she killed Khal Drogo who was rendered deaf, dumb, and blind by spells invoked by Mirri Maz Durr (GOT, 636). Sacrificed Mirri Maz Durr to bring forth her three dragons from the stone eggs, (GOT, 660). Briefly took her handmaiden Irri as a lover. (SOS, 268) Served by Jhogo, Aggo, Rakharo as members of her Queensguard (COK, 742-743). Lead her khalasar to Qarth wherein she destroyed the House of the Undying with help of her dragon, Drogon. (COK, 317, 531-532) Saved from a second assassination attempt by a Sorrowful Man in Qarth by Ser Barristan Selmy, disguised as Artisan Whitebeard in the service as squire for Fat Belwas. (COK, 664) Gathered Unsullied to her cause and conquered the city of Astapor, freeing its slaves and destroying the ruling slave class (SOS, 314-315). Conquered the City of Yunkai by setting its defenders against each other (487). The Masters of Meereen retreated and fortified the City of Meereen in preparation of Dany’s advance, only stopping long enough to nail one child to a stake for each mile between Yunkai and Meereen. 163 children were killed in this manner (SOS, 640). Fat Belwas defeated the city's champion, Oznak zo Pahl, prior to the city falling to Dany (SOS, 643). Sent Barristan the Bold and Ser Jorah Mormont into Meereen as both a means to victory and a means of punishment (SOS, 653). Took Meereen in a day with “sewer rats and a wooden cock” (SOS, 804). Took 163 Masters of Meereen as justice for the murdered children (SOS, 805). Daenarys’ dragons were Rhaegal, “the green” named after her oldest brother (COK, 145), Viserion “the cream and gold” named for her brother Viserys (COK, 145), and Drogon, “the black,” named presumably for her dead husband (COK, 145).

Expansion

As I've mentioned on, oh, maybe a dozen talk pages by now, I'm revising all the A Song of Ice and Fire character pages. While I've done a lot of cutting on the House pages, and even a little on Aerys Targaryen, I think the Daenerys page (as well as Jon Snow) could actually do with a bit of expansion. As it stands now, it's barely larger than sections on some minor characters. I'll be editing in the material above in some form, and adding new detail as well. Brendan 16:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I've been getting some heat for uploading an Amok image, even though I credited him. I've sent him an e-mail asking his permission, so don't delete them until I get an answer from him.--CyberGhostface 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

CG, you're not "getting heat". Copyright violations and similar things are bread-and-butter of a Wikipedia editor. We've all been there, no personal attack is implied. That begin said, keeping Wikipedia legal is of utmost importance for its credibility, so I hope you support my attempt to get the Amok pictures' status corrected. If we really could use his images, that would be wonderful, and your efforts in acquiring his permission is much appreciated. But please remember that we are not asking him for a non-commercial license. As soon as he releases the pictures for WP, anybody can print them in an artbook and make money off them. All they need is to mention Amok. Arbor 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC) I also hope that your email to Amok explains this. He cannot "allow his art to be used on Wikipedia". No such licence exists. As soon as the material is here, it becomes (roughly speaking) part of the public domain. That includes commercial use. (That's not quite true; read the licensing details on the image upload page if you care about the various possible licences.) But Amok is a valuable member of the GRRM fan community. Treat him well. Arbor 07:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is what he said to me.
"I'm not sure about Dany's image, because (c) on that portrait belongs to FFG. You can use my Portrait Gallery - no problem, as long as you credited it, but I can't give you the permission to use the images I've done for other companies. Sorry about that."
So there's nothing to worry about. I'll remove the Dany picture and replace it with the regular one. I really don't see someone ripping off his images in another artbook. The copyright still belongs to him. And I've been more than polite to Amok in the e-mails.--CyberGhostface 12:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me see if I can get this straight (I understand the legal issues only marginally better than you...): Amok retains his copyright—he has not released his images into the public domain, right? But the e-mail you quote seems to grant us permission to use it on WP. (That is extraordinarily generous of him.) I suggest we go crazy and illustrate everything we can from his portraits galleries. As far as I can see, the proper license is Template:Non-free fair use in, for the article in question. Am I reading this correctly? Arbor 12:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
He's letting us use the images on wikipedia. I don't think that someone can legally rip them off and use them without Amok's permission in a book just because we're putting it on Wikipedia. If you think someone's going to abuse Amok's permission then I'll delete them.--CyberGhostface 13:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Cyber, that's the whole point. All of Wikipedia is in the Public Domain (well, under the GFDL license or something like that). As soon as you write a paragraph of great prose and put it here, it becomes Public Domain, free to be "ripped off", completely legal, by anybody. Microsoft can use it to advertise Word with, for that matter. And as soon as you upload an image, that image goes into the same pool. So "just putting it on Wikipedia" is a very imprecise term. If Amok gives you permission to upload it here, and unless you do your homework and tag the image properly, it becomes Public Domain, and Amok loses all rights, and everybody can "rip it off and use them without Amok's permission". Trust me, we aren't "giving you heat" just to bug you. Instead, I want to protect Amok's intellectual property. This being said, I assume the template I linked to does exactly what we want, because it doesn't relinquish copyright. You, as the uploader, now need to vouch for this, and explain (for example by referring to his email) that the copyright holder agrees. And then we could use all his wonderful images on WP, which would be great. (And a great contribution from you.) Arbor 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for any trouble I caused. What exactly should I add to the pages in terms of template so Amok retains the copyright?--CyberGhostface 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture Update

I sent an e-mail to Amok asking for his permission, and he said as long as it isn't art that he sold (such as his art from the new art book) that we are allowed to use it.--CyberGhostface 01:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Is "Dany" actually in the books?

I know that fans often call Daenarys "Dany" for short, but is this one of the character's actual nicknames in the story? If not, the "Dany" mention should be bumped up to the top, with a note that fans of the series use the nickname.Captain Crawdad 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It's what she's mainly called by. Pyreforge 10:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dany's age

Does anyone know where in the books it says that Dany is almost seventeen? She was thirteen in A Game of Thrones, and I can't find anything in the books that says three years have passed. Admittedly I haven't read ASOIF in a while, but I would have guessed she was more like fifteen. Pyreforge 01:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dany/Irri relationship

While it plays little role in the books, I believe Dany should be added to the list of fictional LGBT charachters. Is there a previous debate I am missing out on or should I go ahead and tag her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nifler (talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

- I wouldn't put her on there. George R.R. Martin has said before that the encounter with Irri didnt make her homosexual, it only proved that another woman was capable of arousing her. I mean, Irri was trained in the art of pleasure after all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.27.247.225 (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know where this GRRM quote might be found? I tend to agree that this minor encounter doesn't justify classifying the character as LGBT, but I think any reference to it (either way) by GRRM or journalists will help with this discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 21:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Video game appearance in the infobox

As I said in my edit summary when I reverted, I don't think the character's first appearance in video games is notable enough to be mentioned in the infobox. Video game tie-ins aren't distinct versions of the character, just subsidiary uses of the TV version. And in any case, Daenerys features in the social media game Game of Thrones Ascent. While that's not really a game in which characters "appear" in the usual sense, it certainly predates the latest episode of the Telltale game. I'm not going to revert again, but I'm curious what other editors think about this. Brendan Moody (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Article setup

As seen with this edit, Keivan.f changed the setup of the article, moving the television material to a TV adaptation section. As seen with this edit, I reverted, stating, "I don't like that setup since it makes it seem like the storylines don't also tie in with the TV adaptation.", and "By that, I mean that until the latest season, the television series was quite faithful to the books." As seen with this edit, Keivan.f reverted, stating, "It's not about the TV series' loyalty to the books. It's really ridiculous to have the 'Casting' section after 'Character description', they're completely unrelated. Take a look at 'the Lord of the Rings' characters' articles or even Tyrion Lannister." That same diff-link shows me reverting, with the following reply: "I disagree that it's ridiculous; see MOS:TV. I disagree with your setup; discuss the matter at the article talk page instead of edit warring."

If this article were like the Tyrion Lannister article, which is also on my WP:Watchlist (I watched as that article was elevated to WP:Good status), I wouldn't mind as much, but it isn't. That article has a section dedicated to the book storylines and to the show's storylines, which are pretty much the same anyway because the show was very faithful to the books. But at the same time, that article's "Description," "Creation and overview" and "Development" sections have book and television information in them (for the television show, it's either directly there or solely there via the references being about the show). And yet its TV adaptation heading makes it seems like all of the material before that point is solely about the books; so I don't like the TV adaptation heading at that article either. I think that heading would fit better if it were separated from the "Recognition and awards" and "Merchandising" sections; at least that way, the TV adaptation heading being only about the television's storylines wouldn't imply that it's the only section in the article that's about the television adaptation. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television to this matter for opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't mind Keivan.f's change. As in the Tyrion or Jon Snow articles, the books (as the originating source) are the primary topic, and by definition, the "TV adaptation" sections discuss information specific to that medium, with the assumption that storylines are the same or similar unless it is mentioned otherwise. As you know, I improved those two articles and I took special care to separate book vs. TV information. As a matter of fact, the entire "Character" sections of both of those articles are intentionally book-specific. In the case of Jon, there were some comments from the TV producers that I felt applied to both the novel and TV versions of the character. This is why I would also disagree with your suggesting of moving the Awards and Merchandising sections in the Tyrion article; these solely apply to the TV version of the character. I think you're looking at these articles the wrong way, they are actually about the book characters. The TV series is just a derivation of that, as there could be a Feature film or Video game or Comic book or Animated series section in the future should something notable enough be created in those mediums.— TAnthonyTalk 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
TAnthony, you stated that the entire "Character" sections of both of those articles are intentionally book-specific; but like I noted above, there is also television commentary in the sections...or the references are also about the television portrayals. I don't agree with your view that these articles "are actually about the book characters." They are about the book and television versions of the characters. And while the latest season has significantly deviated from the books, making the television versions more so their own entities, the vast majority of the information regarding these characters applies to both the book and television versions; I don't like a setup that implies that the versions are completely or mostly different...unless it's the case that that they are. Furthermore, the show's popularity has surpassed that of the books because the show has reached a significantly wider audience, which is also the case regarding the The Walking Dead comics being adapted into a television version; this is why, for example, the Reception section in the Daenerys Targaryen and Rick Grimes articles thus far concern the television reception. I prefer the setup of the The Walking Dead character articles, where, for instance, there will be an "Appearances" section with "Comic book series" as the first subsection and "Television series" as the second subsection, and where the other sections in the article are about both versions of the character...unless there is no material in reliable sources about both or unless editors haven't gotten to around to relaying information about both. The idea of having a TV adaptation section in the case of these articles to me is liking having two Reception sections in the article, like one about how the book version of Daenerys Targaryen was received and one about how the television version of Daenerys Targaryen was received, when it's the same character, a lot of the reception is going to be redundant, and when this content can be covered in the same section. Even if we divide the material into subsections of a reception section, only one reception section is needed. We don't need a section for each adaptation of a character. Not usually anyway. But I can live with your or Keivan.f's setup of these articles; we might as well be consistent throughout for this series. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I do want to note that this Daenerys article is not in great shape yet so when I discuss this topic I'm really thinking about the Tyrion/Jon/Ned articles. Flyer I totally see your point, it's all the same character. But as with any topic like this, in my opinion the source material should be the primary topic, which doesn't mean the adaptation information can't overshadow or be more robust than the novels. So my primary beef is just that a clear delineation/differentiation between novel and TV series needs to be made. It doesn't have to be specifically sectioned out but in most cases that seems the best way to avoid confusion. I did take a look at Rick Grimes, which is a well-done article. I really do see what you're saying Flyer. Then again, it seems weird to me that Development and Reception are general sections when the content only applies to the TV series LOL (OK there is like one sentence calling the comic character popular). This is the same as GoT in that there is much more available commentary on the TV series and so you couldn't have two separate comic and TV sections that cover all the same info even if you wanted to. The Margaery Tyrell article isn't great but it has an interesting layout that serves the available information. So I'm not saying that any of the existing GoT character layouts is perfect and should be duplicated, but I think it's essential that novels and TV be clearly differentiated. This Daenerys article has been "next" up on my GoT list for improvement but I haven't gotten around to it, I don't know if you've got it on your to-do list but maybe moving forward we develop it more "your way" and see how it looks. There's really no use fighting over it now, it's kind of crappy LOL. If you get into it before I do, I have some research I can share.— TAnthonyTalk 22:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, TAnthony. I see what you mean as well. I guess we somewhat agree and disagree on this matter. As for the Rick Grimes article, the Characterization subsection of the Development section is not limited to the television aspect, even though it mostly is. And at least the Critical reception section begins by stating "Rick Grimes was named the 26th Top Comic Book Hero by IGN." But both the Development and Reception sections of that article definitely need more information on the comic book aspect. The problem with that is that the vast majority of the analysis and reception for that character pertains to the television series. It seems that there is more book reception for the George R. R. Martin characters than there is for the Robert Kirkman characters. Either way, it's good to have you back working on articles after your long hiatus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems that you don't even care about what I think. First of all MOS:TV won't solve any problem. These imaginary individuals are originated from the novels not the TV series. And that's why I think we should have another section about the adaptation. As I said before that show's loyalty to the novels isn't a good reason to keep the current setup. The storyline of the show is going to change from season 6 anyway. So, I think there should be another section titled "Concept and creation", including some material about how Martin created this character. As I had mentioned before all the other fictional characters' articles also have this kind of setup. Keivan.fTalk 08:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I don't care what you think. And I didn't state that the "show's loyalty to the novels is a good reason to keep the current setup." As noted above (also see my reply to TAnthony), my issue with your change is the division; I stated of the Tyrion Lannister article you referenced, "And yet its TV adaptation heading makes it seems like all of the material before that point is solely about the books." I don't like that setup; you and TAnthony do. To me, that type of setup makes it seem like the "Character" section is all about the book version, as if the television version is something entirely different, when, in actuality, it isn't. Various character articles, including those based solely or partly on book characters, do not follow such a setup. This article's setup isn't even yet like the Tyrion Lannister article, either before or after your recent edits to it. MOS:TV applies because these characters also have television versions and its the television series that is more well-known (by that, I mean it's reached a wider audience). This talk page is tagged with WP:WikiProject Television; it's tagged with other WikiProjects as well, and I could also alert those to this discussion for a wider input, but my guess is that, judging by the lack of participation in this section thus far, people at those WikiProjects will either barely care or not care at all about this matter. You and TAnthony have me outvoted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Banedon's removal of the reception material from the article, per what TAnthony and I stated above. Banedon offered the following reason for removing the material: "Removed text deals with reception to Emilia Clarke's portrayal of the character, not the character itself, and is therefore not suited for an article on the character." And he then reverted me. Banedon, per above, what you have done is not how we (meaning Wikipedia editors in general) format character articles at all, which is also why TAnthony reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Banedon: Regarding this edit and your previous removal, we may be debating the best way to organize the article, but the reception to Clarke's portrayal of the character is an important part of it and should not be removed.— TAnthonyTalk 06:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, this article covers the novel character and any adaptations, just separated as appropriate. I feel that you might think that in our discussion we were suggesting a separate article for the TV version, which we certainly were not. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 06:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Completely agreeing with you there. The article should deal with the character from the book, not the TV adaptation, if only because there can be many TV adaptations over time all based on the same source material. Accordingly the reception section should concentrate on reception to the character, not to any individual actor's or actresses' portrayal of the character. Reception to Clarke's portrayal of the character is certainly fine, but not in the section of the article where it currently is. It's also very much undue right now in my opinion, with three paragraphs and multiple sentences worth of text to only two sentences that deals with the character. I see in the above discussion you have been referring to articles on Tyrion Lannister, Jon Snow, etc, which I do not think are good comparisons because they're all characters from the same series which in turn only has one TV adaptation. Compare, e.g., Aragorn, Hermione Granger or Charlie Brown instead. Banedon (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
In fact now that I look at it, the Tyrion Lannister page does reception this much better than this article, although I'll argue that even there the sections on the TV adaptation are still undue. Banedon (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where TAnthony stated, "The article should deal with the character from the book, not the TV adaptation." We deal with different versions of a character in the same article, usually anyway. And in the case of Games of Thrones, the television versions are not too different from the book versions. As you know, I made my case about article setup and avoiding redundancy above, and pointed to the Rick Grimes article as an example. TAnthony pointed to the Margaery Tyrell article as an example of a different setup, which currently looks like this (added a WP:Permalink for documentation). So I don't have much more to state on the topic. But I will note that I also disagree with your assertion that "Accordingly the reception section should concentrate on reception to the character, not to any individual actor's or actresses' portrayal of the character." That's just not the way that character articles are done here at Wikipedia. They include both reception to the character and reception to the portrayal of the character, which are usually intertwined when it comes to a television character. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
And a character like Aragorn or James Bond has various adaptations; those are considerably different matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I was agreeing with the sentiment "the reception to Clarke's portrayal of the character is an important part of it and should not be removed". I do think the reception should be included in the article, but not where it is right now. Having taken a look at both Rick Grimes and Margaery Tyrell, I dislike both, although the Margaery Tyrell article is better done. As mentioned I prefer the articles on Hermione Granger and Charlie Brown (Aragorn's is missing a reception section). Also the reason there are "various adaptations" is exactly why the current version of this article is not acceptable. We are way overweight the TV adaptation right now, yet there may be more adaptations in the future. It's the character from the books that is timeless. Any particular actor or actress's portrayal of the character should not be given such prominence. In fact, I'm going to switch the ordering of the section. Banedon (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what various adaptations you are talking about with regard to the Daenerys Targaryen character, or any of the book characters from this series. But either way, I agree to disagree with your view on the matter; this is per what I've stated above. To state any more would be pretty much repeating myself. I also disagree with your view on what is and/or isn't timeless, but that's another discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Another thing I think to keep in mind with this series is what I told TAnthony above: "[T]he show's popularity has surpassed that of the books because the show has reached a significantly wider audience, which is also the case regarding the The Walking Dead comics being adapted into a television version; this is why, for example, the Reception section in the Daenerys Targaryen and Rick Grimes articles thus far concern the television reception." If you look around for media on Daenerys Targaryen, you will see that the media mostly concerns the television adaptation. I agree, though, that the Reception section should have a lot more reception material regarding the book version; whatever is available and will help the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this edit you made. Better flow too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted you on you removing your fix because I think it is better in this case to focus on the character first, whether the sources are commenting on the book version or the television version, and that we then go into the portrayal matter, which might or might not tie into views on the character. That is also why I made this followup edit. Also keep in mind that the television arcs the sources are commenting on happened in the books, with barely any deviation from the books. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Since we now have a TV adaptation section, which makes more sense to me these days considering how the show's storylines have departed from the books, I moved the Casting and development section to the TV adaptation section. That is seen with this edit (followup fix here). I moved the Reception section out of the TV adaptation section because that section is not just about the television series; it is partly about the books too, and not just the first two sentences (even though I highlighted the first two sentences with this edit summary). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Having two Storylines sections seems odd at first glance, but these A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones articles are a special case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I'm thinking about getting into this article next, how are you feeling about the current setup vs. Rick Grimes?— TAnthonyTalk 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I noted, I'm currently okay with the current setup since "we now have a TV adaptation section" and since "the show's storylines have departed from the books." I don't think we should have two Reception sections, though; this is because not only do I think it would be silly, unnecessary splitting, the Reception section is not just about the television series; it is also partly about the books. I know that I just repeated myself on all of that, but I didn't see what new things I could state. If I had to choose a setup for this article, regarding the plot material, I would choose a Rick Grimes setup, which means creating an "Appearances" section, and having a "Book series" and "Television series" subsection as part of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, I was asking in case you felt strongly about trying out the "Rick Grimes format" here.— TAnthonyTalk 15:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the 'Recognition and awards' section should be moved to the TV adaptation section. As it is about the show, not the books. - AffeL (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

On August 12, 2016, Calibrador changed File:Daenerys Targaryen with Dragon-Emilia Clarke.jpg from the first image you see in co.uk/women-in-focus/game-of-thrones-inspiration-why-daenerys-targaryen-is-a-feminist-icon-s75455.html this link (which, unlike the image in that link, was a downsized version) to what it currently is, stating, "more recent representation." The option to revert the file to TAnthony's long-standing lead image is no longer there.

As seen with this edit, that same month, when I didn't feel like taking the matter to the talk page at that time, I noted that I disagree with the image change. I still do. For one, there is no need for "a more recent representation"; the character is not real and the story exists at any given time depending on where someone is in the books or television series. As made clear at MOS:PLOT, "At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'." So the updated image is biased in that it was uploaded to try to appeal to those who have seen the series and are all caught up with it. When season 7 airs, do we then need to update the image to a season 7 image too? No. I prefer the previous image not only because of these arguments, but because I think it is the better image; I think it is more representative of Daenerys and her arc. A primary part of that arc is her being the mother of dragons. Showing her with a young Drogon captures the essence of the character a lot better than the current dreary image does. The current image is just there; it doesn't really tell you about the character. Contrast it with the lead image of the Jon Snow (character) article; that image tells us plenty about Jon Snow. I'm not stating that images need to speak to us, but it's a lot better when they do. I suggest that the long-standing Daenerys Targaryen image be restored. I think that TAnthony made an excellent choice when selecting that image.

Opinions? I will contact WP:TV and WP:FILM about weighing in on this issue. WP:FILM doesn't usually focus on television shows, but they can have good insight when it comes to lead images for fiction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed off-topic bickering.
I think you care way too much about pictures. I think you don't like change. Rusted AutoParts 01:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you are bitter about a recent image case where we both disagreed, and where others have disagreed with you, and that, because of this, you decided to follow me to this article to cause more drama. It's obvious that I "don't like [this] change." I noted that above. It's also obvious that if you continue to follow me, you will not like the outcome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a bit presumptuous of you, would you not agree? Bitter? Following you? Don't flatter yourself. I saw your post in the Film Wikiproject and found it sad how much you object to changes in pictures. Rusted AutoParts 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not any more presumptuous than you were with your comments in the aforementioned discussion and your initial comment above. It's more than obvious that you came to this discussion to pick a fight, and I will not allow you to derail this section any further. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
K. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, you are the editor who deleted TAnthony's image, per WP:F5. Are you willing to restore it for this discussion and post a link to it here? If consensus is against reusing it as the lead image, you can simply re-delete it again. I should also note that I am open to other suggestions for the lead image of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Flyer, as I recall, Calibrator "updated" a few GoT character images at that time, I believe I only challenged one (Jon Snow), in part because I was about to submit that article for GA review. I have seen editors update character images to the "most recent" in other franchises as well, and it usually doesn't really work for me. In the case of Daenerys, I agree that the previous image better represents the character as a whole, and I did in fact select one with a dragon for just the reason you describe. I think at the time I was trying to be collaborative and see if anyone else had issues with the change. And honestly, I have the previous image somewhere on my computer so I knew I could always change it back if I ever got around to working on the article in a serious way LOL.— TAnthonyTalk 15:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am traveling, and just checking in to see if there is something I can do easily. If someone thinks it would be helpful to see the image (I don't even know which one it is) I have no objection to any admin restoring it for the purpose of the discussion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
TAnthony and Sphilbrick, thanks. It seems since there are no objections to restoring the previous image, we can go ahead and do that. Sphilbrick, since TAnthony has the image, he can simply upload it again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done} — TAnthonyTalk 17:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, TAnthony. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I saw this discussion right now and one question suddenly came to my mind. Why the lead images used on Tyrion and Jon's articles seem to be taken during official photo shoots while the images used for other characters are some pictures taken from random scenes of the TV series? If it's really better to use that kind of images then perhaps we should do it for all of the characters. I want to know your opinion. Keivan.fTalk 00:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Keivan.f, in my opinion, it's not a matter of official photo shoot images vs. screenshots; it's a matter of what is an overall better image. In my opinion, the image we restored is an overall better image of Daenerys Targaryen since it captures the theme of the character -- ruler and "Mother of dragons." Sometimes a photo shoot image will be the best image; sometimes a screenshot image will be the best image. That's the case for Wikipedia character articles of any genre. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the images should be chosen on a case-by-case basis to best represent each character, though I do see the attractiveness in being consistent. The images across the ASOIAF character articles have never really been discussed in this manner though. I believe I chose and uploaded the Jon and Tyrion images (and Daenerys one, obviously), which I thought represented the characters well. Most of the other images were uploaded by AffeL when he recreated the bulk of the character articles, and Calibrator later updated some with recent screenshots.— TAnthonyTalk 21:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Optimistic One, regarding this and this, we discussed which lead image to use before. Per above, I still feel that the long-standing one is best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the image with the dragon as well. I'd be open to a replacement that also somehow features a dragon, but so far the ones I've found of Daenerys riding or standing by a dragon from later seasons wouldn't look great when reduced in size.— TAnthonyTalk 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, why is it important to have a dragon in the image with her? It's her own article. My uploaded pic was a self-portrait of her, (and it's also more recent but that's besides the point). There's also another picture of her with a dragon, here's the link [1]. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The Optimistic One, the dragon image more so captures the theme of the character -- ruler and "Mother of dragons." I've argued this above, and so has TAnthony. As for "recent," like I stated above, "For one, there is no need for 'a more recent representation'; the character is not real and the story exists at any given time depending on where someone is in the books or television series. As made clear at MOS:PLOT, "At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'." So the updated image is biased in that it was uploaded to try to appeal to those who have seen the series and are all caught up with it. When season [8] airs, do we then need to update the image to a season [8] image too? No. [...] Showing her with a young Drogon captures the essence of the character a lot better than [your] image does. [Your] image [was] just there; it doesn't really tell you about the character. Contrast it with the lead image of the Jon Snow (character) article; that image tells us plenty about Jon Snow. I'm not stating that images need to speak to us, but it's a lot better when they do." As for using a different image of her with a dragon, you can suggest different ones here and see if we all agree on using it instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
TAnthony and Flyer22 Reborn: This discussion was over two years ago and involved a different image. So, I think we should start a new discussion and try to see which one is the preferred one, I still think the one of her in S7 is better. I don't see why it's that important to have a dragon in the picture. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It's an old discussion, but it still pertains to the long-standing lead image you removed. The rationale for going with that long-standing lead image is the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daenerys Targaryen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Name origin

See also: Talk:Tyrion Lannister § Tyrion's name

In a blinkbox books interview, George Martin disussed that he looked into old british names to craft new ones, now he doesn't go into detail about each character, but the Welsh name; 'Nerys' is the only name that matches Daenerys's name, however, any discussion on here on the possible name is swept under the carpet, forgotten and undiscussed.. even if it's a possibility, (even though is pretty obvious) it should be added to the article, that's why I'm writing it here instead of disputing because I know my argument will be lost.. I tried to use youtube as a source in the past, but apparently, that's not good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is clearly original research; GRRM's comments are not specific enough, so your assertions about the origin of the names Daenerys or Tyrion are your own analysis/conclusions. GRRM also doesn't say he used versions of old British names for every character. In any case, if this info was really notable, or really obvious, another reliable source would probably have mentioned it. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 02:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

cultural influence

Recently (Aug 11) on Real Time With Bill Maher, Maher said

Trump responded in his usual thoughtful poisy way and he said "North Korea best not make any more threats or they'll be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen" okay Mother of Dragons, we get it, you're a badass with nuclear weapons.

Instances like this help to demonstrate the present ongoing popularity and awareness of Daenerys and I am wondering how many other references to her exist. Should we mention any that get reported on? ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See the Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson articles for how to build a good "Cultural impact" section. Trivial references are not enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daenerys Targaryen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities, Drogon, Rhaegal, Viserion

Daenerys’s powers

Hi, I'll get right to it. Daenerys Targaryen has been shown, several times, to have a certain aptitude for magic prowess. Valyrians, in the novels (which serve as a kind of premise for the whole GOT Universe), were known to possess supernatural abilities with which they tamed dragons, enchanted Valyrian steel and the land of Dragonstone, etc. I think Dany is no exception. Her ancestress, for an example, Daenys the Dreamer (you can look her up on the AWOIAF wiki) foresaw the Doom of Valyria (an ability referred to as "Dragon dreams" in the novels) decades before it happened and House Targaryen fled before it could happen (hence their landing and conquest in Westeros). Daenerys is no exception. Dany claims in S2 to have had a dream and seen the resurrection of her "children". In the novels, after Mirri Muz Durr killed her husband and child, Daenerys takes note of how "blood magic" is performed and uses the lives of her dead child, husband as well as said witch (she says "it's not your screams I want, only your life" in the TV as an allegory for this) to perform a kind of mystic trade which hatches "three dragons" in a ritual of "Fire and Blood". Daenerys, "the unburnt", is also immune to fire and heat (i dont have to give you any instance of this at all), this is a power that has been hinted to run in the family Targaryen (or just Valyrians in general due to their connection to the dragons), although it is noteworthy that a lot of Targaryens in fact DID NOT possess this ability as many have died by fire, i.e. Viserys died a very hot death (Jamie though, feared Aerys Targaryen was indeed immune to fire like Dany). Anyways, in the novels, Dany’s fire-immunity wasn’t so clear-cut. Daenerys describes the fire as burning her to the point of making her blood boil and her skin crispy, but it has the effect of rejuvenating and rebirthing her (kind of like a Phoenix, even burning all her hair off, rather than her just being immune to it (whether this explanation can be used for the series’ first finale and “Book of the Stranger” can be debated). The source of Dany’s fire-based powers can also be debated, but it is also implied by the Red Priests that her powers are sourced by Rh’llor, the Red god. By hook or crook, this is power Dany possesses. Finally – and I may just be overglorifying her at this point, but in Mother’s Mercy, if you look closely, I think the way the flames move in the House of the Dosh Khaleen is pretty supernatural. The fire seems to leap toward towards Khal Morro, mentally directed by Dany herself, suggesting a pyrokinetic ability which, if we accept the first point of blood magic, is quite probable, as blood mages, pyromancers and shadowbinders are a common thing in both novel and series worlds. Before going to the House of the Undying, Dany claims in so many words that she has magic herself.

Drogon, Rhaegal, Viserion

Information on Wikipedia concerning Daenerys Stormborn’s three children is very minimal and, if we can’t give them their own page, they deserve a personal section under Dany’s powers and abilities.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed the telepathic and empathic connection between Dany and her babies. It is implied that the magic Dany used to revive her dragons has made them kind of reliant on her for their life force to thrive. For instance, the warlocks of the House of the Undying claimed that magic had only returned to the world thanks to the draconic phenomenon sparked by Daenerys’s blood magic ritual. Additionally, they claim that magic is strongest in the presence of the dragons and they, in turn, are most powerful in their “Mother’s” presence. Later, Daenerys learns to order them to fire their deadly flames using the word “dracarys”, but we can shrug this off as simply pet training. Later, Dany completely loses control of her children and they go wild and she locks them up, this may suggest that she can’t completely control them telepathically. Bear with me here. When Daenerys is in trouble Drogon shows up out of the blue to save her from the Sons of the Harpy. In the Battle of the Bastards, Daenerys seemingly summons her dragon at the right time while conversing with the masters. She also seemingly directs Drogon to call Viserion and Rhaegal out of the prison she’d sealed them in. These instances could be just coincidence, sure, but things get weird later. Her ability to order her dragons empathically seems very potent in season 7. In the Battle of the Blackwater Rush, Dany flies to the battle with a single dragon, which one might assume she told them verbally to “stay”, but later in Beyond the Wall Dany boards Drogon (who himself is “smart enough” to bow his wings for her to climb aboard) but says nothing to the other two dragons, who follow after she takes to the skies, this can’t be taken as coincidence. Dany and the dragons are connected psychically and empathically. Then there’s that final episode, “The Dragon and the Wolf”. After Drogon leaves her at the summit of leaders, Dany sits down but the dragons remain close by. If the meeting turned ugly, how would they have realized their mother was in trouble in time unless Dany called them? How? By mouth? Is one expected to hear her from that distance? Or would she have summoned her dragons by some other, more arcane manner?

Aside from their magical connection to Dany, the dragons are themselves main characters of the show. After all they are the Mother of Dragons’ main source of military strength and force, even if she is one dragon down. They have stories as well and define a great deal of Daenerys Targaryen’s story.

Here's what I'd like to do

I'd like to write a section with the above and state a bunch of Daenerys' shown powers and abilities in a manner like other powered individuals written of on Wikipedia (i.e. Jean Grey#Powers and Abilities). Additionally, a section on Drogon, Rhaegal and Viserion is also necessary. Objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Summers (talk • contribs) 20:07, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any objections on principle, but hopefully you will a) keep it as well-sourced as the equivalent section of your Jean Grey example, and b) keep it from being too long and crufty, which—from the length of your comment alone—seems likely. I should also note that any of your personal observations/interpretations (like "this may suggest that she can't completely control them telepathically") aren't appropriate for the article, but if you can find reliable sources which interpret the plot, they can be included with clear citations and attribution. Primary sources (the novels themselves) are fine for facts that need no interpretation (like the colors of the dragons, for example), but anything beyond that needs to be stated by an accepted authority. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 20:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright thanks for the reply, I'll do my best to keep to your suggestions! Tyler Summers (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Tyler Summers, the section you added should be removed. It's based on WP:Primary sources rather than WP:Secondary sources and is filled with WP:Synthesis because it's you relaying your interpretation of matters. What you have added belongs at Wikia, not here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22 Reborn I have to disagree. Perhaps there are specific parts that are my interpretation, such as the pyrokinetic portion and maybe the part where Rhaegal attempts to catch his brother, but I assure you everything else is well-sourced, having either happened on TV on in the novels themselves. Everything about the draconic behavior I mainly took from the novels as they're more descriptive on the matter. Don't take my word for it though, please go through all the sources. To say the whole section should go is a little harsh, especially the more obvious of Khaleesi's powers: her pyro-immunity should not be up for debate at all in the show in my opinion, but then again I sourced all the times that ability was used onscreen and the converse use of it in the novels. Whether or not Daenerys has powers is not a question. It has been vehemently stated, even in the novels, but I'm not saying there aren't parts of this that can be argued and if there are, I'd rather we address the issue specifically rather than erase the entire section. I hope I've made my point clear enough :D Tyler Summers (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Flyer's point is that as an editor you cannot interpret the text or TV series plot, or draw your own conclusions. This is exactly what I warned you against in my comment above. Now with the level of coverage the TV series gets, I'd be surprised if you could not find some reliable sources that discuss some of the points you make.— TAnthonyTalk 14:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you cite this article once, but it seems to have much more usefulness for the rest of the section.— TAnthonyTalk 14:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
TAnthony, OK, but my point is that most of the things I've written in the section, such as the dragons' behavior and their connection to Daenerys (or more literally their rider) is stated in so many words in The Princess and the Queen and the other texts I've cited. I assume by reliable sources, you mean of non-Wikipedia articles? If that's what you mean, I've extensively used Wikipedia articles and I guess then I'll roll-back the edit temporarily and find some! Although honestly, her flame immunity shouldn't even be a question IMO. ;D Tyler Summers (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The section is poor and I don't think it should be here. We have "Creation and characterization" or "Characterization" sections for encyclopedic material dealing with aspects of a character; this can include powers. I know that "Powers and Abilities" sections are commonly put in comic book articles here at Wikipedia, but the vast majority of those articles are written from a WP:In-universe perspective and are not encyclopedic. The section you added is not encyclopedic, and I don't want to see it become the norm at Game of Thrones character articles. On a side note: No need to ping me since this article is on my watchlist. And per MOS:HEAD, you should decapitalize "Abilities."Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your concerns. Daenerys does have powers. As do Bran, Arya, Robb and Melisandre, if it's a concern for them to have a powers and abilities section I don't mind adding it to the "characterization " section as I believe you're suggesting? I get TAnothy's concerns about the out-of-Wikipedia sources and I've already compiled quite a few (albeit I haven't posted them ye Also, I'll rewrite the entire thing for a more out-of-universe narrative. I believe those are your concerns? Tyler Summers (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
I don't see how else to make you understand. Looking at your contribution history, I'd characterize you as a relative newbie, which explains why you aren't seeing this in quite the way that TAnthony and I are. I see that you removed the section. Someone like Masem might want to try explaining. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and leave a note about this at WP:TV and the Game of Thrones article talk page for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinged here, I would caution very much about trying to mimic comic book character articles. Many many of them are far too long and based on primary information. I would use Superman as a basis of a good fictional character article - it's not perfect but note the heavy use of non-primary sources related to his bio/powers/etc. --Masem (t) 18:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Superman is a much better example than the originally used Jean Grey which has multiple issues tag since 2013 concerning precisly the type of content under discussion here. For a start, I suggest adding one paragraph, with sources, to "Character description" concerning her "pyro-abilities", not exceeding the length of the current description (=doubling it but nothing longer), and if that gets accepted by other users, it can be expanded later. No need to waste time (writing and reading) such questionable blocks of text. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Still, I don't think we should be really be using comic character articles as a basis for literary or TV character articles who aren't superheroes. Superhero characters are more or less defined by their superpowers, which makes a section dedicated to them more appropriate. Whatever "powers" Daenerys and similar characters may have are a relatively small aspect of their characterization. There aren't a lot of fictional character FAs (and I don't think there are any comic book character FAs), but Jabba the Hutt is a better template, which is a format that the better-developed ASOIAF character articles currently emulate.— TAnthonyTalk 21:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Neimenkräft

The name Daenerys appears to be similar to the British Welsh Deyrnas meaning "kingdom." A direct usage of Deyrnas would be too obvious and so creative transformation is the possible idea. Part of what makes it an obvious case of creative transformation is the fact that the show is largely British promo, with a feminine lead who is cute and wise, and wishes to usher in a golden age of almost-democracy where shes on top and when she asks for your opinion she'll give it to you. But its true, according to policy, if the author denies it, the obvious connection will have to be unmentioned.-Inowen (nlfte) 22:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:OR. We are not allowed to include original arguments or ideas in our articles. The only reason we might be allowed to include this in the article would be if you can provide a reliable, scholarly source that explicitly connects the word deyrnas to Daenerys Targaryen. However, I highly doubt such a source exists and similar-sounding words like these are often deceiving. The problem is that there are so many different languages out there with so many different words in them that the chances of any given word in any given language sounding like a word with a similar meaning in another language just by sheer coincidence are extremely high. Phonological similarity alone proves basically nothing. For instance, in the language of the Mbabaram people, an Australian aboriginal tribe, the word for "dog" is "dog," but the language is completely unrelated to English and the phonological similarity is nothing more than a completely random coincidence. Linguists long ago learned to be wary of drawing connections between words simply on the basis of how they sound unless there is also another form of clear evidence to indicate a transmission. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reception of villain arc

There needs to be some distinction within the section of the Reception of the villain arc. Several sources were have been written before The Bells (where the villainous turn occurred) and thus were merely anticipatory. They shouldn't be mixed with those sources written after The Bells, which actually react to the villainous turn. Flyer22 Reborn, tagging you. starship.paint (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I don't think so, seeing as the section is about her villain arc and not solely about what she did in that episode. This means that it includes information on the buildup to that episode as well. That episode is just an aspect of the matter. That stated, it's the biggest aspect. Most of the sources about her turning into a villain are about that episode, and there are sources that commented on the villain matter before that episode because they suspected or knew that episode was coming. I see no need to highlight that episode specifically when the section already points to The Bells (Game of Thrones)#Critical reception for further detail. The episode article is naturally going to focus on that episode specifically. I reverted you here (with a followup note here) because, like I stated, the "her villainous transformation was especially criticized, with reviewers and fans feeling that, because she was built up as a good and moral person for seven seasons, it made no narrative sense or there was insufficient time to pull it off properly" piece is already covered in that section and the episode article is for further detail specifically about the episode. It's best to not have the two sections copy each other much.
On a side note: Starship.paint, since this page is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to it. I won't ping you to this section again unless you want me to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Having the sections significantly copy each other also gives editors a reason to cut a lot of the "Daenerys's arc" material in the episode article, and I don't think that material should be cut since most of the complaining about that episode concerns Daenerys. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - okay I won't ping you, but please ping me. I'm not sure if you got my point. I'm not asking you to copy things from that article. I agree that sources that commented on the villain matter before that episode because they suspected or knew that episode was coming should be included. I just would like some distinction to be made apparent about which sources were the anticipatory ones, and which are the reactionary ones. starship.paint (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I got your point. I just don't agree with your "distinction" rationale. Here is what I'm saying: The section is about her villain arc. Reviewers are complaining not only about what she did in that episode, but also about the lead-up to it. Regardless of the "anticipatory" sources, the focus of that section is "Daenerys as a villain." She was being built up as the villain before the "Bells" episode. There is no need to specifically address the "Bells" episode when the "anticipatory" and "reactionary" sources address the same points and the section directs readers to the "Bells" episode article for more information. The "anticipatory" and "reactionary" sources addressing the same points is why they fit so well together. Except for the Rose Moore piece, the "anticipatory" sources are also reactionary because they are reacting to the show heading into the "Daenerys is a villain" direction one episode before it's to happen. There is no need to have the "anticipatory" material all be in one paragraph or have more than one "anticipatory" paragraph and mess up the flow of that section. For example, the Rose Moore piece is best served at the end of that section, as one of the counterarguments to the complaints about turning Daenerys into a villain. After all, the complaints are more prominent; the minority "it's okay to have Daenerys as the villain" viewpoint should come after the complaints and it shouldn't get as much weight. I'd rather not have the section in this article specifically address "people complained about the 'Bells' episode" when we already have the episode article for that. I'd rather not mention/link to the "Bells" episode in the text since the section already links to it by way of the "further detail" template.
But I can compromise. As a compromise, we could change the "Estelle Tang of Elle stated that many 'commented how unbelievable it was for Dany to turn into a violent vengeance-seeker this far into the show's run.'" piece to "Estelle Tang of Elle stated that after Daenerys murdered thousands of innocents in the episode 'The Bells', many 'commented how unbelievable it was for [her] to turn into a violent vengeance-seeker this far into the show's run.'" Or, to avoid mentioning the episode specifically since we already point to the article on it, how about changing the aforementioned sentence to "Estelle Tang of Elle stated that after Daenerys murdered thousands of innocents by burning down King's Landing, many 'commented how unbelievable it was for [her] to turn into a violent vengeance-seeker this far into the show's run.'"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah okay, Flyer22 Reborn. I’ll take any of your compromises. You choose. starship.paint (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I added the "after Daenerys murdered thousands of innocents by burning down King's Landing" piece. Also notice that the source speaks of the buildup to that moment -- how the show was changing her in the last few episodes. This is what I mean about it all fitting together seamlessly. Some of the "Bells" episode sources discuss the buildup in addition to the "Bells" episode, while others focus only on the "Bells" episode. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thank you! :) starship.paint (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Background" and "Appearance and personality" sections

TheGreatClockwyrm, regarding this, it's mostly plot. There is already enough plot material in the article. The "Background" and "Appearance and personality" sections should mainly be presented with a WP:Real-world perspective rather than a WP:In-universe perspective. See what was stated in the #Powers and Abilities, Drogon, Rhaegal, Viserion section above. For an example of such sections told from a real-world perspective, see the Todd Manning article that I worked on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Actor salaries on character pages

This applies to other character pages
In regards to edits hell-bent on keeping tabloid-fluff trivia of actor salaries in character pages, how are these salaries relevant at all for inclusion in a page about the fictional character? Take Jerry Seinfeld. He's a real person who received a then-record salary, so it makes sense for inclusion on his page. Jerry Seinfeld (character) is a fictional character who doesn't make sense for mentions of a real-life person's net worth. Arguably Emilia Clarke's aneurism, which has no mention here whatsoever, had a greater impact on the characterization than her salary. (I find it amusing that this paragraph about the actress's rumored salary is longer than the paragraph about her entire season 4 storyline, as well as longer than the one section mention on Emilia Clarke's own page, who, y'know, is the real life person who actually got paid.) Is this information even notable? It's not close to being a superlative or record in any way. Second, the alleged sources can't even agree on how much they were paid. For the last two seasons The Hollywood Reporter says $500,000 an episode, Express says $2.5 million. Court documents say $1 million. Not only is this questionably notable, it's questionably factual. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully you realize that fictional character articles should be more than descriptions and plot summaries, and should include info about creation, casting, analysis, reception, and impact. The fact that five actors out of the entire cast received record pay increases IS casting-related and speaks to the importance and notability of their characters (and Jon, Daenerys, and Tyrion are called the three most popular characters in many sources). And where are you getting the idea that It's not close to being a superlative or record in any way when these people are included near the top of the very list you cited? Financial facts published in The Hollywood Reporter or other industry journals (a routine occurrence) are also not usually considered "tabloid-fluff trivia". This info should be included in the bio articles as well, but I don't think the same people focused on character articles necessarily work on the related BLPs. I can't speak to your Jerry Seinfeld examples because I'm not familiar with the edit history there, and anyway I don't know that it's relevant per WP:OTHER. The salary inconsistencies are a problem, but they don't negate each other or render the info meaningless; rather it should be explained that sources contradict each other.— TAnthonyTalk 20:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
No, the "importance and notability of their characters" is derived from reliable sources publishing material actually pertaining to the characters themselves, things like editorials about storylines and cultural impact (how come that isn't mentioned?). Salary is information that largely pertains to the clout of the actors and pay raises may partially stem from an increased profile gained from other projects, e.g. Helen Hunt received a pay raise on Mad About You not because of the popularity of her character on that show but because she won an Oscar for another role. Most of the main GoT cast have lucrative film careers. BTW, Most of the cited sources for their salaries don't even mention their characters. A massive salary by itself doesn't make the characters notable - Apple paid actors more than the GoT cast and their characters don't meet notability requirements here.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Cultural impact is mentioned. The Reception section clearly includes the "girls named after her" aspect you linked to. But, yes, information on the cultural impact of Daenerys can be further expanded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daenerys_Targaryen/Archive_1&oldid=1074314461"