Talk:Game of Thrones/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

unfair language regarding file-sharing

The language in the piracy section is misleading. Even if some jurisdictions have made the downloading of this information illegal, it is not universally illegal, and specifically not illegal in the US, the nation of origin. The minor edit redacting "illegal" is factually more accurate, and an edit war has ensued. How do I make this clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.20.189 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Umm...it is illegal to download copyrighted materials. Per here which may not be reliable, but as a tertiary source it does confirm what everyone else knows. So stop your edit warring behaviour. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found many sources which back this up. The best one I found (talking about music, not movies but the idea is the same) is: [1] . Now are people getting sued/prosecuted for downloading alone? No - but that doesn't change its legal status. Caidh (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

it's still legal in some jurisdictions. the particular source for this claim is a torrent, which may have been legal to download even for users in the US, but certainly in less restrictive jurisdictions as well. saying "illegal download" unfairly slants the language in favor of proprietarian goals by scaring people from exerting (what some have called) basic human rights in communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.28.229 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, it isn't required that some is the truth to be included in Wikipedia, but that it can be verified with reliable sources. And the statement that these downloads were illegal is in fact verifiable in reliable sources. The article cites this BBC article, which describes the downloads as illegal. The BBC is a reliable source. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to second guess reliable sources. Our job is only to faithfully report what is said by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. can you please restate that? May I? "We don't care if the words of the article are true so long as they reflect a source which we believe"? How hard is it to go look at the fair use article and determine that "illegal download" is dysphemistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.28.229 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia policy. The policy of basing the encyclopedia on reliable sources, rather than personal assessments is quite fundamental to Wikipedia. For a guide see: WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. If you think what the BBC article writes is wrong, I suggest taking it up with them.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could sidestep the issue and write "unauthorized downloads" instead? (Just plain "downloads" isn't accurate, either, because of HBO Go.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I think we should just stick with the wording used in the source.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

i don't see why one instance of "illegal" can't be redacted. there are 3 other uses in the same paragraph which reflect the wording of quotes. the redaction i'm proposing is VERY MINOR considering the tone of the paragraph, and is extraneous ("downloads" are used without the "illegal" or "illegally" more than once in this article, even when referring to torrents). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.28.229 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If the change is so minor, then why do you kick up such a fuss? Removing "illegal" from that sentence does not improve it. It makes it worse, as it just creates the potential for confusion about whether the number includes downloads which were authorized by the distributor.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing illegal makes it more factually accurate, as not all 4 million of those downloads can be known to be illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.25.165 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP is correct; the legality of downloads (as opposed to uploads) varies by jurisdiction. I've removed "illegally" where Bittorrent is mentioned as the method, so no confusion with authorized downloads is possible. But I've kept it in where the qualifier is attributed to David Petrarca. Sandstein 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

this seems correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.28.229 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous Statement

I move that the following statement be removed from the second paragraph of this article, because I don't think we'll ever find a way to back it up: "It is the most recent big-budget work to have contributed to the popularity of the fantasy genre in mainstream media" Perhaps it is also: "The most recent non-cowboy tv show that has caused several ranchers in the deep south to feel more content with life on Fridays than previously." BarbaraMervin (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is also time dependent, so "most recent" will need changing anyway at some point in the future, so pointless including in a wiki.Charlesr (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please add synopsis and differences from books

There should be a more extended synopsis either on the main page, or if it gets too much, place them in the individual seasons. The reason being that there are differences between the books and the TV series, and the link to the book synopsis is not enough, and they should also give the differences from the books. Currently in the plot section there is no plot to speak of. Hzh (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cast's nationalities

In response to this revert: am I alone in thinking that the following could lead those who don't know better to believe that Peter Dinklage's nationality is British or Irish? The performance of the very large, predominantly British and Irish cast was widely praised. Peter Dinklage's "charming, morally ambiguous, and self-aware" portrayal of Tyrion, which won him an Emmy and a Golden Globe award, among others, was particularly noted. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

shooting in Israel

in the 2nd season, some of the episodes were filmed in Makhtesh Ramon, Israel. Why not mentioning it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.208.202 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's news to me. Do you have a reliable source for that? Sandstein 23:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

you're right, they only visited there to promote the series, didn't film it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.181.53 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Game of Thrones: Universe Similar to Ringworld?

There is one unique quality to the fictional universe that I could not find described within the article, and is only referenced in the beginning, the "decade long summer". From the introductory graphics as described in the "Title" section, and the non-standard and variable length seasons mentioned in the series makes me wonder if the physical "land" of the Game of Thrones universe is similar to Larry Niven's ([[2]]. The moving bands in the graphics make me think this. Another theory is that the universe is on a standard planet that has several suns, moons, rotation, etc...

Is any explanation given to what causes the irregular seasons? If so, I think it is worthy of inclusion somewhere.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The books don't go into any discussion as to why the seasons are irregular. Perhaps the new World of A Song of Ice and Fire book next year may have detail about it but otherwise all I've seen is fan speculation on it. Caidh (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Game of Thrones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring seems to have ended and maintained stability since GA review accepted on the 16th. I will be checking for other quick decline before beginning review.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Stability is in question. These articles on major television events or programs can be difficult to remain stable however, it may be the wrong time to attempt this. Past edit warring and current reverts show the article may not have the stability for a GA nomination at this time. I will wait a few more days to see if stability is regained.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonably stable now.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This nomination is being quick declined based on copyright violations and a non free rational that is incomplete which is also a copyright issue.

File:SeanBeanMar09.jpg retains the full copyright of the photographer Sean Bean.
File:Game of Thrones title card.jpg has does not meet all criteria for non free content. Specifically, it requires full information to locate and verify the image's market value. The current info is not enough to show where this image orginates to make verification. A link to the website or further explanation as a screen shot is needed if accurate. The "purpose" is simply not accurate at the moment as well because the way it is written has no meaning almost at all. It should read "As the main means of identification of the subject and to illustrate critical commentary in the article".

Because these were the first two items I checked and they are actual copyright concerns and violations I am compelled to decline this nomination. I will go through the article a little more to check for further copyright issues.

Before nominating this article there are a few other things needing to be taken care of. First, remove or source all claims that are not unquestionable fact unless referenced. Check the references being used as some seem to now be "Page not found".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Some further things to clear up:

File:Dubrovnik crop.jpg has author issues that need clearing up as the uploader and author are not the same person it appears.
File:Malta191.jpg needs a description better than "I am the author of this picture".

This portion: "The four seasons ordered so far each consist of ten episodes. Most episodes from the first and second season run for about 52 minutes, while many of the third season's episodes are 56 or 57 minutes long. The series' pilot and the second and third season finale run for more than an hour." seems almost unquestionable and like basic math but it makes some analysis and needs a source for the claim. Also, "so far" seems constraining. Would something like "As of...be more appropriate with a source to lessen the perception of original research?
I believe there is an MOS issue with the tables. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Size "Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum per policy. Some material may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing using the summary style method. Consideration may be needed to either keep all the material embedded in the main article or split it off entirely into a sub-article, leaving a {{See}} template...". I think the tables are excessive for GA with the exception be the table in the "Adaptation schedule" section. I would split the other table lists off and link from the main article."

Captions. This seems to be very common but, all claims even in the captions of the images must be referenced unless captioned with straight forward information such as the name subject or location. Most of the images in the article are making claims needing some sort of source even the claim about cosplay. I suggest simply changing all captions to be as straightforward as possible.
External link. Remove all fan sites that are not official sites per MOS external links as they also violate copyright in some instances as well as linking to social networking site, forums etc.
I would pour over all the reference sources before nominating again as I don't believe "winteriscoming.net" is considered a reliable source. This appears to be a personal blog written by one person with some contributors only described with user names.

--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Thanks for taking the time to perform this review. I or others have attended to the copyright issues you raised. The other issues are, in my view, good possibilities for improvement, but I am a bit surprised to find MOS or referencing minutiae of this sort in a GA review. I'd have expected this level of scrutiny only in a "featured article" candidacy. For me, it's not worth the effort to go through all of this, but others may see this differently. Sandstein 09:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein and thank you for your comments. I use the GA criteria and unfortunately the way they are written is not always as clear to some, but it clearly states that the MOS for specific topics must be complied with such as: "b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists is part of the listed part of the GA review and is not a subpage. External links is part of Layout and I always go by the main page, which is NOT a sub page but the main page for hat guideline. The external links issue is a copy right issue as well as a cruft issue and contains issues I feel are unacceptable for a GA article. If you feel there is anything in my review you do not agree is part of the GA review process feel free to ignore them. I won't be doing a second review in consideration of your comment and what would now be a conflict with you on this subject. This is a good article. It just doesn't meet the GA criteria as I see it right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

northern accent

Yorkshire whilst in the NORTH of England is not the quintessential 'NORTHERN' accent ... ask anyone from Lancashire, Merseyside, even Tyneside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.140.234 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sean Bean, Yorkshireman, is notable for always using his native accent in his roles, i.e. Boromir in the Lord of the Rings, Ian Howe in National Treasure etc. --121.216.103.108 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Language

The BBC estimated that, through the series, these fictional languages are heard by more people than the Welsh, Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic languages combined.

This statement is trivial, redundant, and potentially inflammatory. I propose its removal. 60.241.132.22 (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Trivial perhaps, but redundant to what, and inflammatory how? Sandstein 11:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it properly sourced? -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not trivial, not redundant, not in anyway inflammatory. The text in the article reads: The BBC estimated that, through the series, these fictional languages are heard by more people than the Welsh, Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic languages combined. However, this is inaccurate and is not a BBC estimation; the referenced source states: It has been reported that this is higher than the number who hear Welsh, Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic combined. Although the BBC itself is considered to be a reliable source, this mention in the BBC article is a classic example of what we call WP:Weasel, and should be substantiated by a reference to the actual source of that claim.

That said, through the millions of viewers, it is nevertheless a highly possible claim. From Wikipedia Irish language: ...the 2011 Census, these numbers had increased to 94,000 and 1.3 million, respectively.[14] There are also thousands of Irish speakers in Northern Ireland, and a comparable number of fluent speakers in the United States and Canada. From Wikipedia Welsh language: In the 2011 UK Census 19% (562,000) of Welsh residents aged three and over reported being able to speak Welsh, of whom 77% (431,000) were able to speak, read and write the language; 73% of Welsh residents (2.2 million) reported having no skills. From Wikipedia Scottish Gaelic: The 2001 census of Scotland showed that a total of 58,652 (1.2% of the Scottish population aged over three years old). Of particular interest is: One episode was downloaded about 4,280,000 times through public BitTorrent trackers in 2012, about equal to the number of broadcast viewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be willing to back down on its redundancy, and if pushed on its inflammatory-ness (I did say "potentially", though an overly sensitive Welsh speaker might see this as belittling), but I stand by its triviality. Who cares? What am I supposed to do with this information? Why single out the invented languages for a special comparison with the real world? More people saw Arya's sword than have ever wielded a sword themselves. Should we mention this too if the BBC made such a claim? 60.241.132.22 (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As a native Irish speaker, and somebody who is a big fan of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, I find the comparison remark about our national language very offensive. If this was a linguists article, such as a comparison between today's Germanic and Celtic language speakers, then I might understand, but right here it is completely irrelevant and does nothing but deride a language that has already faced a lot of hardship and negligence in its homeland. The BBC is not a judge of our language, and should think more carefully in light of the successful peace process which has helped bring the relationship between Ireland and Britain to an all time high. I would concur with the previous users point about Arya's sword. I'm sure a similar analogy could be made about a fictional language appearing in a popular Chinese TV show than would be heard more than the speakers of one of world's most spoken languages. DanielCT7 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the costume section, there is a sentence not within context that reads: Björk's Alexander McQueen high-neckline dresses inspired Dormer's unusual funnel-neck outfit, and prostitute costumes are designed to be quickly removed.

I was researching this point myself and found the Bjork reference difficult to understand. I would suggest the following amendment for easier reading: Björk's Alexander McQueen high-neckline dresses inspired Dormer's (who plays Margaery Tyrell) unusual funnel-neck outfit worn in The Ghost of Harrenhal, and the prostitute's costumes are especially designed to be quickly removed. 151.225.78.240 (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seems like a contentious change to me. There's no need to redefine that Margaery Tyrell is played by Natalie Dormer, nor do I see a reason or any RS to add that the outfit was worn in The Ghost of Harrenhal. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that an odd comma in the opening lead?

This sentence just seems a little awkward with the comma - and I'm a big fan of the oxford comma but quite unsure just which kinda comma this is. "The series was renewed for a fourth season, to debut on April 6, 2014.[4]" Does anyone else see this? If so can we tweak just a little? for example 'The series was renewed for a fourth season debuting April 6th, 2014'? sorry if its just me, let me know and I shall be gone... Too soon for love (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

nudity

I noted that the article records objections made about the show regarding excessive female nudity. While it may be true that objections to this have centred on female nudity, it seems to me having watched it that the show also has an unusually large amount of male nudity and in this sense is balanced, at least in terms of cultural norms, in the gender of nudity it presents. Reading the article you would not get the impression it also pushes the boundaries in presenting male nudity. It may be that females object to female nudity, but males do not object to male nudity and thus there has been no equivalent criticism?

Perhaps on a slightly different point (though not really), the tone of the books, which has thus far been reflected in the television adaptation, is unremittingly sadistic in that characters are introduced, put through hell and come to a nasty end with great regularity. The fact that some of them are tortured sexually seems rather a natural extension of this approach as appropriate in the case. This may indeed mean that females get the worse of it since a major subtext seems to be might makes right. I dont think that is necessarily the message intended to be conveyed to readers, since most people seem to get killed and so arguably the real message is that in a society dominated by brutality, you are very likely to suffer it even if you also hand it out, but it does flow as a natural consequence of such a scenario.

I appreciate that wiki relies upon quoting others, and as such it is much easier to quote reputable critics than an amorphous mass, but the general positive reception of the shows overall, rather implies that the public likes the death, violence, manipulation, rape and torture, which are the essence of many of the human interactions. Sandpiper (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Scotland to United Kingdom.

Can we change the part on the right titled filming locations. The part which says Scotland would look better and correct if it was changed to United Kingdom, Like most pages on here.

If you did that then both Northern Ireland and Scotland would have to be removed. As an englishman I would suggest it is appropriate to be more precise than just UK.Sandpiper (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Scotland has a distinctive look, as do the other parts. That look is what's important to the show, not non-Westerosi politics. If you tell me a show was shot in the UK, I'll picture townhouses and red buses. If you say Scotland, I'll see the hills and cliffs we see in Game of Thrones. I can't be the only one, or they wouldn't be stereotypes. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

There are some names in the cast and characters section who have never been credited as main cast. I believe it would be best to remove them as there is no reason why those specific guest cast should be mentioned when many other guest cast are not (who one could argue are more important). Best to keep it objective. They are Art Parkinson, Michael McElhatton, Iwan Rheon & Diana Rigg. While it is possible the first three might have been promoted for season four (unlikely, but hard to say until they appear in an episode so we know how they are credited) shouldn't we at least wait until their names actually appear in the title sequence first. Diana Rigg has already appeared in ep 4.01 and remains listed as guest cast so should definitely be removed. I would do it myself but it won't let me for some reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.42.141 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really a great expert on actors to say which are stars in their own right or not, but I'd suggest that Diana Rigg's name is sufficiently starworthy that she would get mention simply for appearing. Likewise, had Sean Bean just played a footman in one episode, he would have sufficient name recognition to get a mention. I don't think that the choice here of which characters/actors to mention should be governed by the producer's own choice of which to describe as 'star' parts, which might be completely at odds with a generally accepted view. In this article the actors mentioned seem to be those necessary for a brief exposition of the characters with significant roles, which may not agree with cast listing requirements. I note the rather perverse award as a supporting character to Peter Dinklage, when from the very start his looked a prime candidate to be a major role.Sandpiper (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

This edit request to Game of Thrones has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Little add here: in Canada, also broadcast by AddikTV (French television) : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AddikTV Dianedany (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Length of plot summaries for episode articles

In this edit, Balaenoptera musculus added Template:Plot to the Plot section of the Oathkeeper article. I removed the tag, stating, "Just because it has several subsections...that does not mean that the plot is overly long. It's the same design as all the other 'Game of Thrones' Wikipedia episode articles." Then Jack Sebastian reverted, and we exchanged further words in the edit history, as seen here and here. Several hours later, Anthonydraco showed up to begin reducing the plot material of that section, as shown here. Balaenoptera musculus tagged other Game of Thrones episode plot sections as being too long or detailed, including some WP:GAs (good articles) such as Winter Is Coming. And Anthonydraco has stepped up to trim the plot section of those other articles as well.

Though, as seen in that fourth diff-link above, I told Jack Sebastian that I'm not interested in discussing this matter, I do want to take the time to make sure that Balaenoptera musculus or any other editor is not tagging these plot sections as being too long and/or overly detailed simply because of the number of the subheadings. When looking from the table of contents, the subheadings make the plot sections look longer than they actually are. The length clearly should not be based on the number of subheadings. To Balaenoptera musculus's credit, in this discussion at Talk:Oathkeeper, he did cite WP:TVPLOT's recommendation that episode plots be 200 to 500 words. But I ask that editors keep in mind that WP:TVPLOT is a guideline, not a policy, and that (like WP:FILMPLOT) it makes exceptions; it states "[a]s a rough guide" and also states "[c]omplicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots" and "upwards of 350 words for complex storylines." Given the length of Game of Thrones episodes (being commercial free) and the format style these episodes are told in, they might be what WP:TVPLOT describes as complicated; and my concern there is that we ensure that we are not cutting out any important detail, that we ensure that every storyline is summarized well. And to that effect, I call on Tenebrae, who is excellent at cutting plot information without cutting any important details, to this discussion to see if he or she may be able to help with this Game of Thrones issue. And for anyone wondering why I started this discussion here, I did so because, per WP:TALKCENT, it's best to centralize a discussion that pertains to various articles, and this talk page seemed like the best talk page for that in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for starting the discussion here, it's a good idea to do it in a centralised place. No, it's not simply because of the subheadings. It's because the plot summaries I tagged seemed to be way over the length limit suggested in WP:TVPLOT. I haven't actually done a word count so correct me if I'm wrong. WP:TVPLOT is indeed simply a guideline (as part of WP:MOS), the relevant policy is at WP:IINFO: "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." (emphasis mine) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My feeling has always been that while the word count guideline is indeed a guideline rather than a hard limit, it is best practice to abide by said guideline unless there is consensus to waive it for applicable articles. I suppose we could reach consensus for a general waiver of the guideline regarding all GoT articles here. I don't follow the series myself and I don't intend to start patrolling the related articles. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Something else to keep in mind, at least in my opinion, are Game of Thrones episodes that exceed an hour and are the length of some films (such as some animated movies); there are only a few Game of Thrones episodes like that, but the aforementioned "Winter Is Coming" episode (the first episode of the series) is 62 minutes long. Then again, that's only a few extra minutes longer than the usual length (56-58 minutes) of episodes for the series. Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

To be sure, there's also no harm in tagging a plot summary for improvement. If a summary's close to the recommendation yet still over, it can probably be trimmed a bit without significant reductions in content. What I'm saying is that hopefully editors aren't considering the summary being tagged as some kind of admonishment against them...though it would probably be best not to expand the summary at that point, at least not without a discussion first. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. No admonishment was intended.

Writing short but meaningful - i.e. dense (in a good way) - plot summaries is a very tricky job. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

So long as folk can agree as to what parts of the plot can be trimmed out, I'm in favor of it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad to render an opinion. Firstly, if we can synopsize feature-length, 90- to two-hour-plus films in 700 words or less, we can do that with roughly one-hour TV shows. Second, we can save words simply by doing such technical edits as changing passive voice ("The man was killed by the warrior") to active voice ("The warrior killed the man"); taking out the word "that" in places where it's not absolutely necessary (which is most places); finding two sentences in a row describing a single moment of action and condensing them to one; removing dialog unless absolutely necessary (which is most times); and not using two or three words when one will do ("He went quickly up the hill" > "He hurried up the hill").

Also, and this comes from my nearly nine years here, I remember in the earlier days of Wikipedia fans of particular movies (and almost every movie has some heavy-duty fans) would insist that everything in a 1,500-word plot just had to be in there. I've found that the 700-word limit is a an objective, concrete way of avoiding such excesses. And i've personally found it to be good exercise in writing concisely, straightforwardly and, by necessity, well. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned, I'd like to point out that I did not trim it "Just because it has several subsections". But they are overly long because some details are just not necessary. For example, "Rast stopped to taunt Ghost". We can just cut that. Or "Sansa took a small boat with Dentos to get to a ship hiding in the fog", while we can just say "Sansa get to a ship hiding in the fog." The trivial details about the boat doesn't even matter when you take in all the context. They reach the ship. As far as I can tell, almost every edit I've recently contributed in GoT plot sections are to remove such excess. WP:Filmplot makes exception for when you CAN'T summarize it short enough. In this case, we obviously can, as the edits I've made lost no major consequential details. I've been contributing films and TV series articles for a very long time and I know what I'm doing.

Also, there are many instances that I did what Tenaebrae has just said. I reworded numerous passive sentences to active. Even said it in the edit summaries. Kindly read them. Better yet, select my edits and see the difference yourself. You'll see that even if I remove stuff, most sentences say the same thing, only less superfluous and with less words. If you don't believe me, ask Doniago or Ten, they've all worked with me before without any slight friction. They can confirm what I'm doing easily enough. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should generally try to stay within the 200 to 500 words guideline, if perhaps more often closer to 500 due to the length of the episodes. This should normally be quite feasible if one takes the effort to write concisely, and to trim unimportant details, which improves the quality of the prose. As an example, I just copyedited a random paragraph in "Oathkeeper" from 58 down to 36 words (-38%) without losing anything of significance. This should be possible for most existing plot summaries. Sandstein 15:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've now cut the plot from 887 to to ~~607~~ 537 words without, I think, removing anything important. Further trimming should be quite possible. Sandstein 16:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Sandstein! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments on whether or not we should get rid of the subheadings, which as I mentioned above, can make the plot sections look longer than they actually are? The reason I brought up that aspect is because I have seen editors judge an article's length and sometimes the length of plot sections simply based on the number of headings. There have been several times when I have pointed to WP:SIZE for editors to base the size of an article on, emphasizing to them that readable prose size is what matters when it comes to judging an article as too long or not. If a person includes the subheadings when putting the plot section through a counter, that can also add to the plot length. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mean subheadings such as "In the North" or "In King's Landing", I think that they should generally be retained. They improve the article's structure, and consequently its legibility. Without them, the text would appear more compact, but specific information would be harder to find. The exception is if everything that happens in any one region or setting can be summarized in one paragraph, but that will most often not be the case. Sandstein 15:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course those and similar ones are the subheadings I mean, since they are plot subheadings in the Game of Thrones episode articles. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, has anyone here seen this? My God, it must be over 2,000 words — for a TV episode! An important episode, yes, but if we can get Titanic to 700 words.... --Tenebrae (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, but The Wire finale is a special case. Can't expect to keep that to a few thousand words. The normal rules shouldn't apply in this case. <<<<<<<<<<< joke! joking! not really!

Anyway, I can summarise Titanic in 2 words. One of them is "sinks".

Re the subheads, I think they're fine, if they add to comprehensibility then they're a good thing, but I don't see any reason to exclude them from word-counting. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How does it make sense to include them when counting the plot? The word count for a plot section is supposed to be about the plot summary, not the plot's heading; this is why we are not supposed to include the heading Plot when counting the plot. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's probably a legitimate argument to be made that if the word-count of the subheadings all by itself impacts whether the count is significantly over the recommendation then more trimming should be considered. I mean, how many words are we talking about that are just the subheadings? DonIago (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone remember what the plot sections for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies used to look like?[3] Huge and full of close detail with hefty character lists. Check out what they look like now: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. That's more like it, right? Right now, the show is still on and Wikipedia's readers are eager for all sorts of small details. That may change in a year or two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014

This edit request to Game of Thrones has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rewrite the international broadcasting as per WP:TVINTL. English speaking countries only, prose form, and should be titled Broadcast. WP:NOTABILITY and MOS:FLAGS also apply. 66.87.81.75 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Viewer Numbers: Season Number of Sopranos missing!

In "Viewer Numbers" it says: "making the season the second-most viewed of any HBO series,[146] after The Sopranos.[147]".

I think it's weird that the sentence clearly tries to compare viewers-per-season averages, but instead compares a season to a series. It's like saying: "This episode was the third most expensive after The Sopranos and The Wire". When you compare cost-per-episode, compare episodes, not episodes with series.

Since the sentence compares the per-season audience, the sentence should explicitly mention two seasons. And the link clearly also states that's it's the fifth season of The Sopranos which had more viewers (" GoT will end its third season Sunday as the most popular series on HBO since the Adrianna-whacking fifth season of The Sopranos."), so I think it should say "making the season the second-most viewed of any HBO series,[146] after the fifth season of The Sopranos.[147]" --78.54.114.36 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: I just noticed [148] (http://www.hitfix.com/the-fien-print/game-of-thrones-has-become-more-popular-than-the-sopranos-sorta-kinda) and the wikipedia page for The Sopranos contradicts the statement in [147] that the fifth-season was the most viewed. [148] talks about the 2002 season, which was season 4, which is also listed as the most viewed in the wikipedia article on The Sopranos. --78.54.114.36 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed both the season and the viewing figure for The Sopranos because of the confusion between the sources. The original wording in the article ("after the fifth season of The Sopranos, which obtained 14.4 million viewers in 2004") appears to be wrong. If anyone is certain about which season of The Sopranos they are referring to, then by all means modify it. I will adjust it for now to show that they are comparing season averages. Hzh (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

This edit request to Game of Thrones has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the broadcast section from a list of every channel in a table to a list of English speaking channels in prose. The changes conform with WP:TVINTL. 66.87.80.38 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

This edit request to Game of Thrones has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change X (table of international channels) to Y (English broadcasts in prose). This is encouraged by WP:TVINTL. 66.87.81.34 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That guideline says "simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged". We're not that simple and already also have a paragraph on two notable channels. The thing to do is add prose to the section on any English (or other) broadcasters you think deserve "special mention". The list part is for those who don't.

Off the top of my head, it spawned a Sky Atlantic webcast, cleverly called Thronecast. Apparently, it's the only "official" one. Seems like something that might be worth noting. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is not detailed enough. - Older and ... well older (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2014

This edit request to Game of Thrones has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the table of international channels to English broadcasts as per WP:TVINTL. 208.54.90.206 (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: By me at least. If this issue is felt to be urgent, I suggest IP to WP:SIGNUP and WP:SOFIXIT. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Supposed rape and cultural differences.

I object to assuming that sex scene in episode "Breaker of chains" was universally considered rape by all audiences. This is a controversy not a fact.

Many people in USA believe that the scene depicted rape because apparently in their society, the rape is defined as "nonconsensual intercourse", with lack of consent expressed in the verbal form or even lack of verbal consent. This however is not true with European audiences. You can confirm this by comparing different legal systems for the definition of rape. Cultural differences go even further. Shocking as it may be to USA audiences, some European viewers would say that Cersei behavior was ambiguous and that she might expected and encouraged this kind of response from her brother. They would also point out that her verbal and non-verbal expressions are not consistent and in such case non-verbal take priority. Some would say that the event is so ambiguous that it should be judged by outcome, but lack of excessive violence (the definition of excessive is also subjective here) implies there was no rape. Some would say that since the objective of the intercourse was not to harm and humiliate (this again is subjective) there was no rape. Others would point out that in their countries women are bound to say "no" despite or even conversely to their actual feelings, so again there was no rape. And so on.

Westeros is not USA and it does not fallow its moral code. Assuming that 100% of audiences (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/04/why-we-should-pretend-the-game-of-thrones-rape-scene-never-happened.html) considered this rape scene is wrong. I think that this part of article should be rephrased. 89.71.106.7 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern. It is an interpretation of the scene (but I think it is not helpful to say that it is an American interpretation, Sweden for example has a broader definition of rape), whether it was the intention of the show to depict rape or not is another matter. Hzh (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd have removed the original post as trolling. Rape is universally defined as sexual intercourse without consent, including in Europe. At any rate, whatever our opinion, we follow reliable sources, which describe the scene as rape without qualifications. Sandstein 17:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that the director of the show didn't think it was meant to depict rape. So it is an interpretation of what's shown. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that per WP:ASSERT, we should be careful about what is a fact and what is an opinion. When something is unambiguously true, then we can state it as a fact, but given that the director himself didn't think he was depicting rape, it becomes a matter of opinion whether what he chose to show is rape or not. Hzh (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

He definitely intended to show a guy replying to "no" with "I don't care" and going right ahead in a church on a mourning mother. The word he used to desribe it in his planning head doesn't matter. It's one of those WP:SKYISBLUE things to assume any woman (let alone your sister) really means "no" in that situation. It's rape by common English standards, but it doesn't mean it was equal to the Elia Martell rape. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

For comparison: scene from "Son's of Anarchy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_nA11nGRpc Clearly 100% of US movie critics and even some wiki mods would put a bullet in guy's head instantly. Also compare with "The Walking Dead" series where people would call Shane a rapist (even though he didn't rape anyone and supposed attempt is questionable). Also compare with Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" for an allegedly rape scene, which in director's mind was a complex scene that was not rape but was perceived as such by some viewers and movie critics. Oddly enough there is no mention of the scene here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Violence. 89.71.106.7 (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)‎

Indeed, not everyone interpreted the Game of Thrones scene as rape (for example, Jaime's portrayer did not), and that is addressed in the section about the scene at the episode article, and is debated on that episode article's talk page. The director, however, as that section shows, did originally refer to the scene as rape.

On a side note: IP, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username twice for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of later, made-for-TV non-rape

At first it seemed irrelevant to mention that Jamie and Cersei had consensual sex in the finale, and extremely "random" to note that it didn't happen in the books. But this revert summary cleared things up a bit. User:Gevorg89 seems to think this change from the books was made apologetically, a rare instance of catering to the critics (if true).

Given that, I can see the relevance, but the point needs to be explained and sourced, rather than vaguely implied. I'm a fairly(?) big Ice and Fire geek, and it went over my head. The general Wikipedia audience probably wouldn't have caught it, either. If that can be fixed, I see no problem with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014

This edit request to Game of Thrones has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hey, I don't have the rights to edit this semi-protected page. Please look at the paragraph under the Piracy Subtitle. The second (and third?) sentences run together incorrectly: "The significant delays in availability outside of HBO or its affiliates contributed to this.[66] and the cost of subscriptions to these services." Maybe it could say: "The cost of an HBO subscription, and significant delays in availability of Game of Thrones outside of HBO, may be contributing to the popularity of pirating this show." Thanks, Pepper VanDam (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Pepper VanDam (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've shifted the wording around to make it flow better, but I haven't implemented your proposed sentence because I feel it changes its tone. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing location of Doune Castle

Can someone change the 'in' to 'near', as it's cited in the ref 43. It's 8 miles from Stirling to Doune.--Malcheyne (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the Doune Castle article, the village of Doune is located inside the Stirling district of central Scotland. Mz7 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A related Afd

If anyone can shed light on the "Games of Thrones" claim at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Wales (actor), please do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thematic coverage

This article spends a lot of time covering the minutae of filming locations but doesn't seem to touch at all on the various themes incorporated by Martin and the producers, which set the show apart from similar genre works. I know I've read interviews and such that discussed the ideas of good and evil not being black and white etc. The lead mentions the issues explored but none of that plays out in the rest of the article. I'd start making adds myself but I have a feeling this is a highly-"policed" article, and I'd rather not spend too much time developing something that will be excised. — TAnthony^Talk 20:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to exploring its themes, although others might argue that a section on themes is more relevant to its source material, i.e. the books, therefore should go into the article for A Song of Ice and Fire. That article already has a section on "Themes", although I think that section could and should be expanded. In this article you would need to write on something that is centered on the TV show, and I think it would be hard not to duplicate what is or should be in the article for A Song of Ice and Fire, so others might argue that a section here is redundant. I think it would be a tricky section to write (does the TV show bring anything new or different to the source material, is there any shift in emphasis, etc.) but you can always make a start on it, if others object, then point them to the talk page and continue the discussion. Hzh (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the content has to be necessarily "new and different" from the source material if it is discussed with commentary in context of the TV series itself. If I'm reading an article about a TV series and wondering why everyone says it's so great, I shouldn't have to go to another article about the book series to get the idea (and besides, the show can't and doesn't get into the entire scope the novels can, so it's not the same). I get what you're saying about redundancy, but the two articles don't necessarily have the same audience, and anyway I would argue that this one does not fully cover the topic. Obviously as with any article about a topic with passionate fans, you get a wide range of borderline trivial areas, and I think a good job has been done here keeping that in check and keeping sections brief. But it kind of irks me that there is such well-cultivated info about costumes, filming locations and languages but not really anything about the writing or thematic complexity beyond some general critical reviews. Anyway, if I get around to adding something at least the article watchers will be warned of my intent by this discussion ;) — TAnthony^Talk 03:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Those supposed borderline trivia directly relate to the TV show, and this is in the right place for them. If you want to add a themes section, the way to deal with it is to have a section with a short summary, but just under the section title, points it to the main article which explores that in greater depth, and that would be the "Themes" section in A Song of Ice and Fire. I would encourage you to expand on the section in A Song of Ice and Fire first, and if that section gets too big, then a separate page may be appropriate. Give a summary here, but also add further information here on anything that would relate more specifically to the TV show. The TV show is just an adaptation of the books, so any in-depth treatment the ideas and themes contained in the books is more appropriate there. Hzh (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Following up on the discussion on my talk page, I agree with Hzh that the themes that originate with the source material should receive in-depth coverage in the article about the novel series. But this doesn't preclude us from summarizing the main points in a section in this article as well, similar to what WP:SS describes. I have nothing against trying to write a concise section about this, perhaps also incorporating material from the "plot" section that might be a better fit in a "themes" section. Sandstein 11:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Oathkeeper

There's an RS-related RfC on Oathkeeper. Participation and fresh voices would be welcome. The matter concerns a single-line reference to the chapters upon which the episode was based. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

American Show?

It seems to me that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and that one of the principles is that facts be verifiable outside Wikipedia, and that facts be cited. Claims about the nationality of Game of Thrones need references. Lee.Sailer (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this an American show? If so, it needs to be stated in the introduction just like other similar shows. Keep in mind that the nationality of a show is dependent on the national origin of the production company. --Brickcity55 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Both in general and as applied to this series? How can a TV series even be said to have a "nationality"? It's a creative work, not a person. People have nationalities, but creative works such as books, songs or films don't. The lead says it was made for a U.S. channel, isn't that clear enough? Sandstein 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Brickcity, the polite thing to do is to wait until discussion is over, not restore the contested piece of information then start a discussion, and it apparently is contested. Nationality does not have to be in the lede at all and other articles doing it is not an excuse, especially when it is contested, also you give no evidence that nationality belongs to the production company, infobox television merely says the shows country of origin, which is completely useless as an instruction. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No darkwarrior, the polite thing for you to do is to keep calm and not catch an attitude. I don't have the time for it and it is not proper behavior for this forum, so calm down. Wikipedia calls for consistency so that is why I recommended the changes. You will not find other popular shows without country of origin in the lead. However, if you want to be inconsistent that is on you. I couldn't care less.--Brickcity55 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone changed the introduction to read that GoT is a British/American show. This is both false and misleading so I changed it back. The show originated in America and is produced by the American company HBO. This isn't a nationalistic thing as I'm Canadian. I just can't stand inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickcity55 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone has once again changed the introduction to read British/American. It is safe to say the page is being vandalize. --Brickcity55 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Locations

Also in Spain El País Seville..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.250.80 (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism Notice

Someone keeps changing the intro to read British/American show as opposed to American show. There is no proof of this as of yet as HBO owns and produces the show. I will change it back. --Brickcity55 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) People making changes you disagree with is not vandalism. It may, however, be edit-warring. I'm still of the opinion that it makes little sense to label this as an "American", "British" or "British/American" series. First, we have no sources calling it any of this, second, works don't have nationalities, and third, there are many people from many countries involved. I'll ask for a third opinion. Sandstein 15:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sand stein I don't have a problem not listing an origin of a show in the lead. I just thing the same should be applied to all movies and tv shows across the board. HBO is the company that owns the piece, produces the pieces, and makes decisions about the piece. I'm not sure what the confusion seems to be about. It seems as though people pick and choose what guidelines they follow --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If we start going by who directs, does the writing, makeup, set production, acts ect. then pretty much all shows and movies should have origin removed from the article. Editors should just do a sweeping removal of any mention of country of origin in any and all articles. If a German guy does the set lighting, who is to say it is not a German show, and if an Australian is the production assistant-- is the show not equally Australian? --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that mods are in danger if opening Pandora's box wider than it has ever been opened before.--Brickcity55 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Walking Dead currently has 3 British actors in main roles. If two season from now every main role was played by a British actor, would the show be British American? These are issues that Wikipedia has to handle if decisions are made on the whole of the production and not the owner of the production. --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting argument --Dookiebot (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A Neutral Third Opinion: This seems pretty straightforward to me. The show comes from the United States that makes it an American show. However I don't think it's necessary to say so in the lead. The information is already in the infobox. The nationalities of the actors etc. do not matter, it's an American show. James Bond movies are full of British actors, but it's still an American franchise. It's simply an American franchise about British people. Try to keep things civil and not edit-war. --Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 01:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sue, you should look for my opinion above. Wp calls for consistency and should stand for that above all. An action in one should be an action in all.--Brickcity55 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sue. Brickcity, no, Wikipedia does not require consistency above all, at least not if there is no manual of style recommendation. In the instant case, it's just redundant and poor writing to say: "... is an American series ... by the U.S. channel HBO". I've removed the nationality in accordance with Sue's recommendation. Sandstein 17:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sand stein, you seem confused once again. Her opinion is not law, only a recommendation and since this issue is still being discussed you have no right to change anything yet. Therefore I'm changing it back until more people can post opinions of the issue at hand and a vote takes place. Wp also calls for consistency so if this is removed here without proof, evidence and any substantial matter of any substance, the same must be applied elsewhere and I will encourage it on other pages.--Brickcity55 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Brick, you need to get over your obsession with "consistency" across Wikipedia articles. Sue and Sand have both presented logical reasons based on guidelines. My "vote" is that you listen to them. 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your negative attitude 2001 is not appropriate on wp. Please use appropriate and courteous behavior when interacting with other users. Also no vote date has been set. People need time to state their opinions on the issue for both sides --Brickcity55 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't see any reason to have "American" in the lede. Its not necessary and is confusing to the average visitor. Though the show is created by an American company, few cast members are American and no filming is in the states. Its not only not necessary, but its potentially confusing.Caidh (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor - I looked at 30 random articles on TV shows, including shows from France, US, Germany, UK, and Australian and every single one of them includes the nation-of-origin in the first sentence. Since that pattern represents the consensus of a large number of WP editors of a long span of time, I think this article should follow suit. Arguing that this one article - out of 100s (?) of WP television articles - should exclude the nation seems a bit perverse. Granted the "... US channel" following soon thereafter is a bit redundant, but that is easily fixed by moving the "US channel" to a later paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DRN case discussion - There is an open DRN case on this topic. It is best if the discussion happen at only one place. If the DRN case is inappropriate, it should be closed, and discussion continue here. But if the DRN case is properly opened, the discussion here should pause and move to the DRN case. I don't have an opinion which forum is better: but it is not good to have two discussions going at once. --Noleander (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Procedurally, it might be significant to note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brickcity55 has established that Brickcity55 has created multiple accounts and has used two of them to participate in this discussion. Sandstein 09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Caihdl, there is no confusion. The show is produced by hbo so the issue is black and white. Where a show or movie is filmed does not impact the country of origin of a show. Filming locations change so does the origin change with it? No. Casting changes. Does this change origin? No. If two seasons from now, the cast is majority Irish and the show is filmed in Australia, would the show the be Irish-Australian? No. The show is American created, American produced, and American controlled. In short, it is American. I don't understand this fearful attitude ( which apparently is only for this article and not the hundreds of others) when it comes to putting country of origin in the lead--Brickcity55 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The DRN is closed and discussion has moved back to the talk page for editors to add their opinions about the matter. Mine are stated above and I will continue to add mine as necessary. --Brickcity55 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just passing through here and will offer you my views on this. If a show is clearly owned, produced, filmed in, acted by, and about a country, the nationality of that is clear. You could even add that the owning company should be owned by people of said nationality too! Otherwise its debatable. Here, its misleading to call it a USA show.

I don't see there is a need to have the nation in there anyway, what purpose does that serve to anyone? It may be useful to say if it is written by USA or produced by a nationality - that would to some prejudicial extent suggest some of its take on the content. But ownership of the company commissioning it, what does that say to my potential prejudice? Leave it out, other pages where its not solidly one nations show should leave out the prejudicial nationalism too :) Cjwilky (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that it is an american created show. There is no reason to remove that fact simply because you don't agree with it. If you have proof, share it. You can't just make up information as you go along. The show stays American until more information is given. --Brickcity55 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed by all the debate about this simple issue. People should start a movement trying to figure out what country owns the colour red. However, when a production company that is registered in the US buys the rights to a number of novels with the intent to produce them as television shows, the resulting television production is owned by them; especially since the development was paid for by an American Company, marketing was paid for by the same company, etc... All production houses, casting agencies, technical crews and yada yada are all contracted by that American Company, and they would all agree that it's an HBO production. Game of Thrones is therefore an American Production because it is produced by HBO exclusively. There is no question about this fact. BarbaraMervin (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading all this comments, only one topic comes to my mind: What is meant by "an American Company"? Is it the legal entity of the owner? I didn't investigate, because it can change rather quick. But what do you plan to do, if the ownership changes to another country (e.g. Japan)? Change all articels about TV shows produced by HBO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.7.192 (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh the classic country of origin discussion. Is always the case of multinational productions. First off, an editor mentioned that James Bond films were American may I polity tell you where to go. They are British as mentioned here. Secondly, considering a British company was also involved in the production of the series as mentioned here, it is hardly surprising that the there is questions raised as to its origins. I would say that would make it most definitely a joint production and not 100% American as some users claim. If not joint, then most certainly a multinational production headed up by HBO MisterShiney ✉ 21:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible judging from the lack of consensus that this could be called an "anti-American" show? One source [waverider96744.hubpages.com/hub/Is-HBOs-Game-of-Thrones-series-Anti-American] seems to think so...

That was a joke, by the way (in case anyone takes it the wrong way). Personally I support it being called an American show, but personal is irrelevant here. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the issue what the reliable sources are on this, rather than opinions? The question is, are the reliable sources split on this matter? If not, then it should be left as is. Dark Unicorn 21:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Asking the question is answering it. Whatever the reliable sources say, goes. Our opinions are irrelevant - we are but slaves to the factual matter.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Deep. Dark Unicorn 22:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Confusing reliable souces with factual accuracy! Wikipedia repeats information others have propounded, it does not assert that this makes it factually accurate, merely that it is a popular belief!Sandpiper (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does it say that GoT is an American production? It seems to be a British/American co-production. HBO is the main producer, but one of the production companies (at least for S1) is British (Generator Entertainment). HBO has also received financial support from the Northern Ireland Screen Fund. Consider the TV-series Rome (which HBO also co-produced), for example: BBC provided financial support for S1 and the series is widely regarded as a British/American co-production. The business section on IMDb Pro also states that GoT is an US/UK-production. HaiDeaf (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Can you provide sources/links that show HBO has received financial support from those other companies, I've had trouble finding some. The BBC mentions the Northern Ireland Screen Fund in relation to the upcoming fourth season. It also says:

"Major parts of the first three series of the medieval fantasy drama were made in Northern Ireland with the assistance of £9.25m in grants."

While it doesn't make it crystal clear, its inferred that those grants are provided by the NI Fund. However, I'm not sure if "assistance" qualifies as "ownership". Dark Unicorn 23:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the Rome (TV series) article page and I see where you're coming from. However that show seems to have been a BBC/HBO co-production agreement from the beginning. Is the same true of GoT? Again if you could provide sources that would help. Dark Unicorn 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own article about IMDB, it's considered to be reliable:

"Nevertheless, although it is generally assumed to be reliable[N 1], ..."

I'm aware that all the information on IMDb is not 100% accurate all the time, but we're not talking about the Trivia-section, "early rumours" or "under development"-info here. IMDb Pro is a quite reliable source for this kind of information, and the information has been available for a long while now, so if it had been inaccurate, it would've been corrected by now. Do you have any specific reason to believe that this US/UK co-production information is incorrect?

You wrote: "However, I'm not sure if "assistance" qualifies as "ownership ... However that show seems to have been a BBC/HBO co-production agreement from the beginning. Is the same true of GoT?"

It doesn't really matter, IMO: What matters is that they provide financial support, and they've been doing so since the pilot. NI Screen Fund is one of the reasons why HBO ultimately decided to commission the series in the first place. There are many articles about this, but one of the most reliable ones is NI Screen Fund's own financial strategy document from 2010 (1). GoT investments are also mentioned in the NI Screen Commission strategy document in 2009 (2).

(1) http://www.investni.com/northern_ireland_screen_4_year_strategy_jan-10.pdf

(2) http://www.investni.com/northern_ireland_screen_commission_strategy_2007-2010_evaluation_summary_report_december-2009_ci.pdf

HaiDeaf (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This subject has already been debated heavily. There is no proof that any company other than HBO owns and produces the TV series of Game of Thrones. Contributions do NOT equate to ownership. Unless someone can dig up an agreement where the Northern Ireland Fund contributed a certain amount of money in exchange for co-ownership with HBO, then the NI Fund cannot be seen as a co-owner. Just because they gave money, doesn't make them an owner. Perhaps, as is well written, they gave money in exchange of shooting the tv series in NI. Just because a production company shoots a work in a certain place, that place does not necessarily own the piece---unless that is the agreement. In the case of Rome-- it was well documented that it was a co-owned agreement between BBC and HBO. However, that is not the case for Game of Thrones. There is no proof as of yet. You can't just make things up as you go along. It isn't proper editing. --Brickcity55 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Financial support does not equal ownership. Ownership equals ownership. --Brickcity55 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)