Talk:Game of Thrones/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Recent edits of "Use of sex and violence" section

I don't want to revert without discussion since the editor Padenton clearly put effort into the changes. I disagree with most of them though. I think some of the sources that were removed definitely qualify as reliable sources for the article - though I may be misunderstanding the policy. I fail to see how the Washington Posts or Atlantic columns would fail to qualify. I also think the SNL has been referenced on many articles and the fact that the issue was covered in such a mainstream satirical format is worth inclusion. Its not being used to cover facts but it's worth at least discussing I think. Caidh (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and am undoing the changes. SNL, for instance, is not used as a source for commentary, but as an indication for the perceived significance of these issues.  Sandstein  11:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the undue weight given in this section, but first one of my other edits that was reverted. In the lead, I made this change, which was not discussed on the talk page and I think you undid by accident when you undid all of my edits in response to this discussion. [1] Is this particular change in dispute as well, or can I return it?
Onto the edits under discussion here: It is my understanding that Charlie Anders is a blogger (as described on her wikipedia article), and as such, I do not believe that her commentary on Game of Thrones is appropriate for the article (WP:RS). I also removed posts on Jezebel and Gawker, both of which I do not believe meet WP:RS. I also feel that Stephen Dillane's comment, which, in the article that is sourced, is more neutral on the topic, has been taken out of context in a way that would misrepresent his view on the issue. For that, I replaced it with his full comment. As for Washington Post and The Atlantic: I don't believe I removed any articles by The Atlantic. The Washington Post article is an opinion column.
Lastly, I still feel that this article gives undue weight (WP:UNDUE) as many of the actors (who these articles are alleging were victimized) have described these scenes in a very different light. My understanding is that the policy on criticism sections is that they should still remain neutral, and not give undue weight to one side. --Padenton (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no issue with the change to Stephen Dillane's comment being included in full - I think that's a positive change. With regards to the Washington Post column, I'm not aware that there is anything against using an opinion column from a reliable source, at least based on my reading of the Statements of Opinion section of WP:Identifying Reliable Sources. Though Charlie Jane Anders identifies as a blogger, I think she definitely qualifies for the statement of "these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" from the Reliable Sources article. With regards to the undue weight of the section, I don't think it is that extensive. Its only four paragraphs, including multiple issues across different seasons from a variety of sources (both opinion and journalistic) and worth keeping as is for the most part in my opinion. You are correct that the source from The Atlantic wasn't removed - that was my mistake for misreading the edit summary, sorry about that! Caidh (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Caidh and Sandstein on this revert. I was tempted to revert that text, but I felt that Sandstein likely would and that we could discuss the matter afterward. And now here we are. Padenton removed criticism of the extensive female nudity and of the fact that it likely exists to attract heterosexual men; considering that this has been a big criticism of the show, it is WP:Due weight to have a whole paragraph about it. The content should not be censored to state "nudity" instead of "female nudity," or to remove "heterosexual men." That is not how WP:Neutral, which WP:Due weight is an aspect of, works. And Jezebel and Gawker do qualify as WP:Reliable sources in certain cases; ask at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard if you are not sure, and/or check the archives there about those two sites. Also see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:About self. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for those links Flyer22, though I'm not sure I understand how WP:About self comes into play here. To be clear, my removal of the 'heterosexual men' line was because it was sourced by an opinion piece, which I felt inappropriate for the article and a violation of WP:RS, as I said (I believe quite clearly) above. As your user page indicates, you are a fan of Game of Thrones yourself, so you know as well as I do that there is plenty of male nudity in the series as well. Not as much, but there is certainly enough that saying "nudity" instead of "female nudity" in the lead section of an article is not censorship. Sophie Turner (actress) described the show as having more male nudity than any other show, while Kit Harington describes the amount as 'a lot' [2].
I am also interested in your thoughts as to my proposed changes above, it seems you mostly commented on my original edits to the article in that diff. Particularly including Stephen Dillane's full comment on the nudity (in place of the cherry picked fragment), as well as comments by Alfie Allen on Theon's various torture scenes. Alfie Allen describes a fan encounter with a victim of domestic violence that drew strength from the torture scenes [3]. Perhaps we could expand this to also add comments from David & Dan on the controversy (We already have GRRM's comment in the Jaime Cersei paragraph), Comments from Sophie Turner (actress) (Sansa), Carice Van Houten (Melisandre), and Nathalie Emmanuel (Missandei) on how they feel it serves a purpose [4], comments from Natalie Dormer (Margaery) [5] and Kit Harington (Jon)[6] that there could be more male nudity. I'm not saying every one of these should be added, but it would be due to show more than just a one-sided look at these issues. --Padenton (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the male nudity has received the same criticism as the female nudity has, which is what this section is about. As for the opinion piece, this section is about critics opinions, so that isn't really grounds to remove it. As for Dillane's thoughts, I think they should be removed. He is a part of the show, so isn't really a neutral voice on the subject, and Padenton was right in pointing out that if his thoughts are included, all these other cast and crew members thoughts could be added as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I made this edit today and given the above discussion I wanted to run it by you all: [7]. Nowhere in the article does David Itzkoff suggest that Alex Graves (the director for the episode) was unaware what he was filming was a rape scene. What Graves said (and what Itzkoff quoted him as saying to HitFix) is "that the characters’ coupling became “consensual by the end.”" It's still controversial, but it does not contradict other statements this director has made regarding the scene since its airing. The actual quote from the interview w/ HitFix.com is ""Well, it becomes consensual by the end, because anything for them ultimately results in a turn-on, especially a power struggle."
Seeing the comments here, my understanding is that the consensus thus far is:
  • The blogs satisfy WP:RS in the context of critic reception and therefore stay
  • SNL stays
  • Stephen Dillane's quote should either be included in full or removed for COI. And if included, we should add other cast comments (such as those above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padenton (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't share this understanding regarding Dillane. His opinion is interesting because it's openly critical of a somewhat significant aspect of the series of which he is a part, which is very unusual for an actor who might be expected to promote the work he appears in. I'm not aware of any other actor having expressed themselves about the use of sexuality in the series, but if any have, we may well want to include their opinion too.  Sandstein  13:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a cut out fragment of what he actually said, Sandstein. What he said is he presumes it serves a purpose. His complete quote (in the source linked) is here: “It doesn’t particularly appeal to me, reminds me of German porn from the 1970s. But I presume it serves a purpose, and the merits of the show far outweigh my concerns on that score.” Its usage in the article is taking his words out of context, and misrepresents his opinion as being critical of the show when he's clearly not. --Padenton (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
But he is critical of this aspect of the series, which is what is being discussed in that part of the article, saying that it doesn't appeal to him because it looks like dated porn. He does go on to note that the series has other, more important merits, but these merits are being discussed (and rightly so) in another part of the article, so it would be out of place to mention them here.  Sandstein  16:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
"it doesn't particularly appeal to me" isn't the same as saying "I don't agree with its inclusion". He goes on to say that "But I presume it serves a purpose". Also, while you're here, what is your opinion on adding perspectives from other cast members as I included above? --Padenton (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, we don't say that he objects to its inclusion. The Dormer/Emmanuel quotes about nudity being a woman's weapon in this world might be added to provide a different actors' perspective, though.  Sandstein  17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Omitting of characters line

I feel this [8] is unnecessary information and too soon. I can understand where you're coming from, over the years there's been countless articles and speculation on what characters were cut. However, reading a lot of these articles and the quotes that were contained in them, the cuts of a certain character have never been actually confirmed. All the articles I read on the Iron Islands plotline being cut, Stoneheart, etc. they all took quotes and ran with them.

1. Nearly every book->screen adaptation does this to some extent, there's less time to provide depth to characters than in prose and there's limited budget to go around for casting a wide cast. Thus far, Game of Thrones has actually kept it under par, and has included the vast majority of the characters from each book.

2. Yes, there was no casting announcement for the Iron Islands plotline in AFfC/ADwD. However, it has not been announced whether the Iron Islands plot was cut entirely or if it's being pushed back to S6 (or later for all I know). Hell, they might've kept it under wraps, they might have kept the people from S2 and given them names.

3. Lady Stoneheart's omission has never been confirmed by the actress nor anyone involved in the production. She did not need to appear at the end of Season 4 for her storyline to continue with the books.

4. We don't know yet whether there will be other sand snakes that were cast as minor characters or not.

That leaves the biggest characters I can think of that haven't been in the show Olyvar Frey, Strong Belwas, and Edric Storm. Perhaps you could share the characters you were thinking of? ― Padenton |☎  22:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with you here, but more because the phrase is unsourced. If the phrase is meant to convey that Martin has a cast of 1000 and the show only depicts 40, that is a common situation with adaptations but could be notable if a reliable source has mentioned it. And someone may have, considering how much coverage the show gets. If we're talking about other, specific characters, I would suggest that noting they are "missing" implies that these characters are notable, and asserting characters' notability requires a source. It's the same thing as going into detail about storyline deviations without a reliable source noting the differences first. Now if there are a couple of articles that mention notable absences then perhaps there's a place to note that, but probably not in exactly this way. For example, I'm guessing that someone somewhere has noted the Sand Snake shortage, and perhaps that would be of note in the character list or in Game of Thrones (season 5). Same for Strong Belwas, etc. You're also right, characters we think are missing could appear later (like Meera and Jojen did), but if they're absent now it's notable with a source.— TAnthonyTalk 02:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I read an article that mentioned the omission of such relatively prominent (POV-)characters as Aegon Targaryen, Victarion Greyjoy and Quentyn Martell. But I agree that a source would be preferable. Maybe we find a reasonably comprehensive one.  Sandstein  10:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Watchersonthewall.com spam

As some contributors may be aware, there is a problem with links to the fansite watchersonthewall.com being systematically spammed as references across Wikipedia by one block-evading sockpuppeteer, see generally Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piandme/Archive and for recent spamming the edits of the most recent sock DickissoWitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That is a WP:BLP problem because this self-published fansite is being used as a reference for BLP content, such as unannounced appearances of certain actors in certain roles. I've made a blacklist request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#watchersonthewall.com and would appreciate it if other admins would evaluate and/or act on it.  Sandstein  23:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dinklage playing Tyrion Lannister

He said this in a 2012 NPR article:

"Dinklage points out that Tyrion tells the jokes, but the character is far from one. And while the physicality of the character is part of the role, Dinklage says, it is not its defining feature.

"It would be stupid if he weren't addressed as an 'imp' in this world, given the surroundings," Dinklage says. "It does address the size issue, but it doesn't knock you over the head with it. Because you don't really need to."

Should we include his own words from the NPR article referring to his character addressed in the show as "imp" vs. using Original Research in the article that now says "clever dwarf" (which has no reliable source) and is not really used in the show?

Also this entire section is all Original Research. There is already a separate page called List of Game of Thrones characters.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/21/153198363/peter-dinklage-on-thrones-and-on-his-own-terms

"Imp" is excessive detail here, he's not so often referred to only by this sobriquet that we need to mention it in the overview. Original research isn't a problem here as this is a summary of the character list, see WP:SS.  Sandstein  09:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Where does WP:SS discuss original research guidelines? Can you point it out? 104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Duplicates the discussion below, please continue there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See the section below.  Sandstein  17:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Original research in question is using "clever dwarf" to describe the Tyrion Lannister character -- rather than what HBO itself uses (see the NPR article). Wikipedia uses the same language on another page see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrion_Lannister
I proposed to remove "clever dwarf" and replace it with Tyrion Lannister also referred to as "the Imp" or "the Halfman" with a reference.
"clever dwarf" is not what the show uses and weakens the character and should probably be removed. It's best to use what HBO/NPR uses. Do you agree? That way we can start moving the cast and characters section towards having more high-quality references.104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Cast and characters section

After the first paragraph, this section is 100% Original Research. It's not well written, it's very awkward, and cumbersome. Is it necessary?104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

See section above. Per WP:SS, we summarize important subarticles in overview articles.  Sandstein  09:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Where does WP:SS discuss original research guidelines? Can you point it out? 104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Or to put it another way ... what specifically in this section do you think is wrong and not supported by the series itself as a primary source? See WP:PSTS: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."  Sandstein  17:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Original research in question is using "clever dwarf" to describe the Tyrion Lannister character -- rather than what HBO itself uses (see the NPR article). Wikipedia uses the same language on another page see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrion_Lannister
I propose to remove "clever dwarf" and replace it with "Tyrion Lannister also referred to as "the imp" or "the Halfman" (played by Peter Dinklage)" -- with references.
"clever dwarf" is not what the show uses and weakens the character and should probably be removed. It's best to use what HBO/NPR uses. Do you agree? That way we can start moving the cast and characters section towards having more high-quality references.104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The point of an overview article is to present a succinct summary of the important aspects of a topic, and in this case, to help readers identify the character they may vaguely remember from TV. For this purpose, a character's role and appearance is more important than nicknames, in my view. A source for "clever dwarf" or an equivalent description can certainly be found, but I'd like to hear from others too.  Sandstein  20:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Perfomed a search. There many more news sources like Time magazine for ex. who refer to the character as "the Imp". See http://time.com/3749757/game-of-thrones-season-5-clips-2/ I'd like to hear from more experienced editors too. You can eliminate "half-man" if you want. But Dwarf should be replaced with "Imp" and cited using the NPR article.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The NPR article isn't useful for this. It doesn't state that the character is referred to as "the Imp"; rather Dinklage is quoted referring to the character as "an imp" informally ("It would be stupid if he weren't addressed as an 'imp' in this world, given the surroundings," Dinklage says), no capitalization or indication that this is a regular nickname for the character. We'd need an explicit source. You're reading between the lines here. Skyerise (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs. We need to hear from other editors. At this point, the "clever dwarf" needs to be removed because it's OR. The NPR article is sufficient, and we can add the Time magazine article and this one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/game-of-thrones/11479610/Game-of-Thrones-season-5-premiere-talking-points.html

No, I'm applying WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The NPR source does not directly support your assertion. If your assertion is true, there will be a source that makes a direct statement. The Telegraph article is also not making a statement about a nickname, it's also simply refering to "the imp" in passing, again without capitalization. This would support languages like "the character is referred to as 'an imp', but not "the character's nickname is 'The Imp'...". Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We need to hear from other editors please. I'm proposing to write it like this with references: "the "imp" "Tyrion Lannister also referred to as the "the imp" or the "Halfman" (played by Peter Dinklage)"
Here's MORE references using the name: http://au.ibtimes.com/game-thrones-season-5-spoilers-dark-days-are-coming-tyrion-jon-snow-videos-1431252
DAILY VARIETY:
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/game-of-thrones-poster-season-5-preview-tyrion-dragon-1201443553/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=7FFGD5x6GlIC&pg=PT88&lpg=PT88&dq=the+imp+HBO&source=bl&ots=kzjsvatNR3&sig=MmUve3f5I9uSUZ9AOztK332Yc5c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=29IVVa7iMIztoASYnYDAAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=the%20imp%20HBO&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The last source (the book) appears to be fine, unless other editors object. Skyerise (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I object too. "Imp" is ambiguous and misleading; "clever dwarf" is plainly descriptive. This is a (poor) solution in search of a problem. —Cryptic 22:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any sources to back up what you say? "Clever dwarf" is not what HBO calls the character. Its all over the internet that he's referred to in the show as "the imp". I can provide ten references from major news outlets for the change. I implore you please give me just one? 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As has been said by others, some things are plainly obvious. If you are unfamiliar with the show, you can understand what the words clever and dwarf mean in this context. Regardless of the fact that has occasionally been used as a slur against Tyrion (in the books more than the show by far), it isn't nearly as descriptive to the reader of the article. The dictionary definition of 'imp' is completely unrelated to the character Tyrion.Caidh (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The entire section seems pretty awkward to me and I agree it could use some work, but 'also known as "the imp" and "the halfman"', while actually being present in the show, doesn't really impart any information about the character. ― Padenton|✉   15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please inform us if Tyrion is ever referred to as a "clever dwarf" in the show? I beseech you my fellow Wikipedians, please see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrion_Lannister 104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
He isn't, but it's nonetheless an accurate description of Tyrion ― Padenton|✉   21:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedians, as Tyrion said, I will not question your honor! I trust fine people such as yourselves understand how this Game of Wikipedia is played. Here below is the rule we must follow to bequeath knowledge we have been entrusted with. I myself too, have erred in the past, but I humbly supplicate your attention to this observance: WP:OR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

I inquire with you all if this course is pleasing to the assemblage of editors gathered here: "Tyrion Lannister also referred to as "the imp" or "the Halfman" (played by Peter Dinklage)"

References:

https://books.google.com/books?id=7FFGD5x6GlIC&pg=PT88&lpg=PT88&dq=the+imp+HBO&source=bl&ots=kzjsvatNR3&sig=MmUve3f5I9uSUZ9AOztK332Yc5c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=29IVVa7iMIztoASYnYDAAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=the%20imp%20HBO&f=false Preceding

https://books.google.com/books?id=Mu-aBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT315&dq=tyrion+lannister+halfman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CosYVZ2FOMjyoASVpILAAQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tyrion%20lannister%20halfman&f=false

104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we are being trolled here and should give this style of interaction no further attention.  Sandstein  06:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Piracy season 5

Regarding the edit dispute:

The information might require a better source but principally such information as originally stated belongs in this article as well, due to the fact that it is a pircacy peak/record and the leaking before broadcasting for the first time afaik. Those 2 aspects belong in any decent summary of the piracy issue and are not just an additional details without any importance for the summary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: This one might do:

British-American vs American series

As this change keeps happening, I figured we might as well discuss it. [9]

I don't know what defines a British-American series or an American series, so I'm just going to list possible factors which I think everyone can agree on:

  1. The cast is clearly completely dominated by British actors/actresses.
  2. The series is shot mostly in Europe, with the US only being the location for a single scene (the bear-Brienne scene in season 3, due to laws regarding transport of bears)
  3. The series has always used studios in Belfast as it's primary shooting location.
  4. The series is produced by HBO, an American network.
  5. Series Creators David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, as well as author George R. R. Martin are all Americans.

I'm leaning towards "American" based on the series creators and HBO's involvement. ― Padenton|✉   18:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Filming location, nationality of actors, etc. are irrelevant. It's made and produced by HBO, an American cable network. That's why it's "American". Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Ditto, it's an American series — BranStark (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No doubt about it it is "American" - Why am I not surprised it was an IP making the change!. –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And Now for Something Completely Different on the Cast & Characters section

I didn't want to hijack the previous one as this is a completely different suggestion, albeit proposing heavy modification of the same section.

I wanted to run the following changes by people:

  1. Per WP:TVCAST, should the section be rewritten as more of a list?
  2. I've seen a lot of series have a cast list in this style (though I couldn't find it described in WikiProject TV): [10], which I think might be a useful addition to the article, now that we're a few seasons in and many characters come and go. A possible caveat is being an unnecessary spoiler (Before someone points to WP:SPOILER, it also says to make sure an encyclopedic purpose is being served), though given the large ensemble main cast, I think we have considerable rationale to have the table auto-collapsed regardless. Inclusion criteria could be anyone who was main cast for at least one season. EDIT: in addition to how it is now.

Any thoughts? ― Padenton|✉   18:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? ― Padenton|✉   16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, prose is preferred to lists in articles (WP:PROSE), and I believe the existing paragraphs a) present the content in a very readable and efficient way, and b) fit into the style of the rest of this expansive article. In my experience, cast/character lists are the starting point, and evolve into what we have here. In this case, an extensive character list exists elsewhere and the link is provided. If we are using Featured Article standards as the goal, as far as I have seen every Featured Article about a TV series has had its character section in prose (including your example, House). That particular article contains a multiseason table as well; GoT already has two similar tables, located in the aforementioned List of Game of Thrones characters, and I think due to their size they are better split out in the character list as it is now.— TAnthonyTalk 20:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup, agreed.  Sandstein  20:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@TAnthony and Sandstein: Sorry for the confusion, for the cast table, I mean for that to be in addition to the prose. ― Padenton|✉   21:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I was also unaware of List of Game of Thrones characters which is actually quite nice. Maybe some transclusion of the first 2 tables in it would be appropriate? Though I would not be opposed to changing the color scheme first. ― Padenton|✉   21:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Adding tables or lists in any form would be redundant and make the section too long, I think.  Sandstein  21:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Plot

What does the over-the-top statement "interweaves several plot lines with a broad ensemble cast" mean? What is a "broad cast", and what in this context is an "ensemble cast"?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ensemble cast. I'd prefer 'large ensemble cast' over broad, but otherwise it's entirely accurate. ― Padenton |☎  14:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The description of the plot is clearly from the first season only and the Plot section needs to be rewritten to include all five seasons and be short say five brief paragraphs - Good luck with that. But it needs to be done and I am clearly not the man to do it.Eric James Wolf (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

'small' writing staff

Not a big thing, but didn't fit in edit summary. Explanation of this diff if anyone wants to contest: [11] The main thing is it doesn't really provide any information. If we could compare this to the writing staffs for other hbo dramas, I'd be fine with it, but right now, it says nothing about what a normal size writing staff is. Though that might be giving too much unimportant information.

Another thing is, 'small' is something in one of the interviewers questions, it's not explicitly stated about the series in the source. ― Padenton|✉   16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I originally wrote that section myself after finding a really great source, so I'm open to any copyedits to be made. The change is fine, but, GoT does have a very small writing staff compared to most shows. The source does contain, "small writing staff", which I believe you referred to, however, I'm confused by your wording. It's no big deal though, the change is fine. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Episode images

Game of Thrones currently has images for the following episodes. It'd be nice if someone could help me out and add some of the missing ones. If you do, please change the {{cross}}-Template next to the episode you added an image for on this list to a {{checkmark}}-Template, so we can always see which episodes still need images. An example of a source is the Game of Thrones Wiki. THANK YOU! Rayukk (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

dvd sales

DVD Sales (U.S.)

  • 2014: 220,515 copies of season 1 [12]
  • 2013: 1,324,078 copies of season 3 [13]
  • 2012: 1,101,200 copies of season 2 [14]
  • 2011: 1,556,204 copies of season 1 [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.7 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Add the LGBT-related television show category

I think that, with the whole "gay trial" the Loras Tyrell character is undergoing and the punishment of homosexuality in a manner similar to sodomy law by the Faith Militant, Game of Thrones earned to be a called an LGBT-related television show. 89.152.85.96 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No objections here, LGBT issues have been a prominent theme throughout Loras and Renly's storylines, as well as Oberyn's ("Then everyone is missing half the world's pleasure. The gods made that, and it delights me. The gods made this... and it delights me. When it comes to war I fight for Dorne, when it comes to love — I don't choose sides."). "This category includes television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming originating in the United States, which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." There's certainly more obvious members of the category, but certainly as heavy a theme here as it is in Law & Order SVU. Seems to me like it fits the criteria. ― Padenton|✉   17:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a specifically LGBT-related television show. What's the threshold? GoT has a gay character or two and of course there's the Loras trial, but given its scope, is this enough to merit putting it in the category? Are there similar shows that have made the cut? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

S5E6 rape scene

I made this change [16]. Wanted to explain a little further. (especially since there will probably be 5 new sources discussing it added tomorrow)

Figure the season 5 should start its own paragraph since we've been doing that so far. If someone wants to re-word it or find a better summary of the article, go for it. 2 things though:

  1. Ramsay did rape his new wife in the books, and the source linked said so (so I'm not really sure where that "it's not in the books" thing came from). In the books, Jeyne Poole is the character all of this happens to, not Sansa. However, as Sansa is at Winterfell and taking over the entirety of Jeyne Poole's AFfC/ADwD storyline, it's disingenuous to say it didn't happen in the books. Actually, the cited article says it's even worse in the books.
  2. I'm not seeing any claim in the cited article that it was done for purposes of sensationalism. The source's main point seems to be that it was unnecessary, that we already knew Ramsay was an extremely awful human being easily contending with Joffrey for the title of "worst person in Westeros". It's possible I missed the claim, if so, I apologize. ― Padenton|✉   06:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds solid to me, Padenton. As for @Illbeyourtennant:'s recent re-insertion, I actively like sections that detail the differences from book to screen, but I'm not 100% that it's relevant here. We're not describing the episode in particular; we're describing the use of sex and violence in the whole show. I could get behind saying "This scene was heavily adapted from a similar event that happens to a minor character," etc. if we could get a secondary source showing how the fact that it didn't happen to Sansa in the books is relevant to the use of sex and violence in GoT. I've been through a lot of the sources and listed many of them at talk:Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken and I and others have added more to the production section of that article. If there is a source that can establish that the fact that it was Jeyne in the books is relevant, you might find it there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

166.137.126.109 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC) The word fantasy should be removed.

 Not done It is billed as a fantasy series. Alex|The|Whovian 05:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Genre: Drama vs adventure

I personally consider this show to be more of a drama than an adventure because more of its action concerns the characters' emotions and interpersonal relationships than going on journeys or physically defeating opponents, but it's clear that some of us think otherwise. Can anyone present sources that refer to or classify GoT as an adventure story? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

please include Andalusian reference in the "Plot" section. Indeed the Dorne castle (filmed in Sevilla) is inspired from Muslim Andalusia architecture and way of life (clothes etc..) thank you. 81.56.83.47 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Need a source that says Dorne culture draws upon Muslim Andalusia Cannolis (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Game of Thrones ratings

The template Game of Thrones ratings is used to display the weekly viewers of all seasons. I recently changed the colours to match the colour scheme on the series overview (shown here), but was reverted due to the contrasting issues of the white background and light colour of Season 5. I agree with this, so I began a discussion with the reverting editor, wondering whether Season 5's light colour should be changed, or whether the white background should be changed so that contrast is no longer an issue. A suggestion can be found on the previous link - what are the opinions of other editors? Suggestions? Alex|The|Whovian 22:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm only seeing this now, since I've tried to avoid GoT pages to avoid spoilers in case I couldn't watch the episode on Sunday at 9pm (I had Ser Barristan's death spoiled by Wikipedia). I don't see why there's a grey background, and the white on grey of {{Game of Thrones RT scores S5}} is especially hard on the eyes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it should just be reverted back to the original colors. We don't have to use the colors we choose for the season articles on everything. Frankly, it looks quite ugly (the gray background) and is hard on the eyes. Using the colors from the season articles doesn't make it any easier to understand than the original default colors. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain to me how purple relates to the fourth season, and orange to the fifth season (as well as the other seasons), and how these colours have been properly picked via Wikipedia guidelines instead of being picked randomly by editors. I recommend reading User talk:Sandstein#Template:Game of Thrones ratings for an explanation as to the background. Alex|The|Whovian 23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
On the whole I think the old more contrasting colors are preferable. The color scheme for the episodes is rather arbitrary, and is unlikely to be recognized as such by readers.  Sandstein  04:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

Typo in last line of first paragraph of overview - "The series completing airing its fifth season...". 'Completing' in this context should be changed to 'completed'. 110.174.22.161 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done good catch :) — BranStark (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Filming location updates

Looks like game of thrones is also filming in Republic of Macedonia http://www.ibtimes.com/game-thrones-season-6-filming-macedonia-possibly-spain-1978788 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PromisedPrince (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 Done It's in the season 6 article. -Rayukk (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 01 October 2015

Consider adding the HBO Network Shows to this article.

Denise B-K (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Denise B-K

@Denisebk: Already in the article, under the "Articles related to A Song of Ice and Fire" collapsible. Alex|The|Whovian 06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

New list

I've started a discussion at Talk:List of directors of Game of Thrones questioning the necessity of this new list. It contains less than 20 people and is redundant of information already included in the easy-to-read List of Game of Thrones episodes.— TAnthonyTalk 18:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Awards table

A different format is definitely and obviously required for the extremely bulky and unreadable awards table at List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones. However, my edits to split it between the already-existing respective yearly sections, collapsing the table, and any further edits have been power reverted. Are there any suggestions as to how this table can be made into a better format? Alex|The|Whovian 00:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I thought I'd start a discussion to see what other editors think of the infobox currently in the article, whether if it's too large or not. It now lists the top 4 writers and directors, with a link to a section within the article. Per Template:Infobox television, this should only be used in the show has a limited number of writers and directors (under 5), though the series has only had 7 credited writers. The infobox also lists 5 producers (only 1 has an article), 6 editors (none have articles), and an exhaustive list of 15 cinematographers (6 have articles). The question is, for example, should we really be listing 15 cinematographers, of which less than half actually have Wikipedia articles and most are only a credited cinematographer on a few episodes, when the infobox doesn't even list any of the starring cast members, which are obviously more notable. Anyone have any thoughts? What we should cut, trim, add, etc. I understand why the starring cast is not listed, because it's huge, but I feel we could come up with a list of 8 to 12 actors to list, if others agree. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these should all be trimmed, or even totally removed. Their notability can be noted further in the actual article itself, and the directors and writers are obviously already listed in the LoE page. Alex|The|Whovian 23:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I've made several bold edits to infobox, removing some of the clutter. If anyone has a problem, please post it here. I would really like if we could open a discussion the possibility of adding some of the cast to the infobox. I think it would be helpful. My list would be: Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, Emilia Clarke, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Kit Harington, Sophie Turner, Maisie Williams, Iain Glen, John Bradley, Alfie Allen, Aidan Gillen, and with a link at the bottom to the list of characters article for the rest of the starring cast. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No cast, that's stupid and would be some kind of a spoiler, cause GoT does not have and main or staring cast members. By doing that you only write names of people that are still on the show, that's huge spoilers for someone who has not seen the show yet. AffeL (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2016

Several of your assertions are misguided. How is listing the cast a spoiler? GoT does have a main cast, it's anyone billed in the opening credits. The only reason the cast is not listed, is because the main cast has consisted of 40+ actors. And no, it doesn't matter if they aren't or are still on the show as the infobox lists all starring cast members, because articles look at the series historically, not what is just current. The names I listed are the top most appearing cast members (with more than 30 appearances) and are the actors that have been billed as series regulars for all the seasons to date (except Bradley, who was recurring in season 1). Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And when the series is over in season 8. those who have not seen the series will look att list of cast and see all the actors who's been on the show for the longest, they litterally have a list of all the characters that will pretty much survived the whole series. I think the List of Game of Thrones characters should be worked on and written better, not this. This is just crazy, GoT has just to big of a cast to list the actors who has appeard in most number of episodes. If that's not a spoiler, than what is? AffeL (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2016

I agree with Affel regarding the presence of the cast, albeit not for the same reason. Per WP: SPOILER, we don't conceal information to prevent people from reading spoilers. That said, ANY methodology designed to determine who should belong is going to be subjective and so inappropriate. There are too many cast members to list and arbitrarily deciding things like listing a castmember if they've been in 30+ episodes is something that will be repeatedly challenged and cause issues. It's not necessary for there to be cast in the infobox, and with this show it is impractical. The WP: STATUSQUO has worked fine and there is no reasonable cause raised for changing it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Run time

It states that the season finales have a run time of over an hour. As S05E10 has a run time of 1:00:15 this is correct for season 5, but maybe it is better to tone it down a bit. Right now the section 'Adaptation schedule' sounds like the run time is averaging 90 minutes. Muxarin (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say the runtime is averaging an hour and a half? I see none of this. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Adaptation schedule

On the adaption schedule table it currently says that seasons 6 and 7 is mostly original content. However, earlier on in the article it says that 6 and 7 are also based on outlines that George RR Martin has provided the showrunners. Could someone please add this information (that season 6 and 7 are also based on George Martin's outlines) to the adaptation schedule table? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:ED06:3E00:5441:926F:7B56:5F03 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I too think "Mostly original content" is a lacking description, when both GRRM [17] and the show runners [18] have stated there will be future book storylines in upcoming seasons. "The Door" had a direct adaptation of the TWOW preview chapter "Mercy", and there's been a good deal of ADWD and AFFC too. Best idea for a one sentence description for season 6: "Original content and outlined future novels, with elements from A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons" --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

TV ratings

@Caidh: I don't know why anyone should give such prominence to TV writers who speculated on why the ratings dipped to make a dubious point. It is clear that ratings dipped every year on that holiday weekend whenever an episode is aired, even for the season 2 Blackwater episode which also fell on a Memorial Day weekend. Anyone can write all kinds of speculations, and per WP:SPECULATION, you need someone who is an expert in the field for any speculation to be included, and there is nothing to indicate that the writers have any significant insight, especially when the writers apparently did not realize that ratings dip on that holiday weekends. Ill-informed speculation does not deserve to be included. Hzh (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And it's a very minor point in any case and does not need mention, at least not here, perhaps in the season or episode article.  Sandstein  22:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Worth adding season 7 is delayed?

Saw this today and didn't see anything on the page regarding it. I know the seasons have always come out in April - would it be worth noting somewhere on the page that the season will be delayed until the summer, and short than previous seasons? Let me know what you think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Soundtrack pages and disambiguation

I noticed in recent changes that AffeL recently created some soundtrack articles such as Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack) and disambiguation pages such as Game of Thrones: Season 1. I think the disambiguation pages are overkill in this case. I would redirect the pages at which currently disambiguation pages exist to the corresponding season articles (per the principle of least astonishment) and place hatnotes on top of the season articles, like this:

"Game of Thrones: Season 1" redirects here. For the eponymous soundtrack album, see Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack).

(Also, I don't think season 1 of the video game needs mentioning, as it only had one "season", which is not even referred to as such, as far as I can tell.)

nyuszika7h (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: If we're talking about the same video game, then it was definitely referred to as a "season". I think the second season and the following seasons weren't free-to-play but in-app purchases. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about Game of Thrones (2014 video game) which is mentioned on the disambiguation page I used as an example. I don't see any seasons and only six episodes there, but if there are "seasons" in either that or another one, that can also be mentioned in the hatnote (if my proposal goes through). nyuszika7h (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Game of Thrones/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


I'll review this soon. I have read all of the books so I know what I'm on about! JAGUAR  14:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  • " include Hadrian's Wall (which became Martin's great Wall)" - why 'great'?
Removed "great" - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "and the sellsword Daario Naharis (Michiel Huisman)" - Daario is played by two actors
Added the other actor(Ed Skrein) - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "About 90 percent of the pilot had to be re-shot, which involved some cast changes and a different director" - the sources mention that different actors were used, you should mention who they were and what roles they played
It is already mentioned in the casting section(Game of Thrones#Casting) - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There's no need for the "US" before the dollar symbol
Fixed - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The rest of the first season's cast was filled out in the second half of the year." - unsourced
Added source - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Nina Gold and Robert Sterne are the main casting directors" - this needs to be merged into a paragraph
Done - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The six seasons filmed so far each consist of ten episodes, with an average runtime of 55 minutes per episode. The series' pilot and every season finale, bar the first, run for more than an hour apiece." - unsourced
I removed this - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "For the second season, shooting of the Southern scenes" - why is southern capitalised
Fixed - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge the last three paragraphs of the Filming section into one
Fixed - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Alik Sakharov was the cinematographer for the pilot. The series has had multiple cinematographers over the course of the series" - not in source
Now sourced - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "For the first three seasons, Paul Engelen was the main makeup designer and prosthetic makeup artist on Game of Thrones, alongside Melissa Lackersteen, Conor O'Sullivan, and Rob Trenton. At the onset of the fourth season, Engelen's team was replaced by Jane Walker and her crew, which is composed of Ann McEwan and Barrie and Sarah Gower." - none of this is mentioned in the source
Added source - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "In 2011, the season one finale, "Fire and Blood", was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Special Visual Effects." - unsourced
Added source - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " Additionally, some scenes were produced by Britain-based Peanut FX, Canada-based Spin VFX, and U.S.-based Gradient Effects. The episodes "Valar Morghulis" and "Valar Dohaeris" earned Pixomondo the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Special Visual Effects in 2012 and 2013, respectively." - unsourced
Added source - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Soundtrack albums for the subsequent seasons have also been published, featuring tracks performed by the bands The National, The Hold Steady, and Sigur Rós." - needs a reference
Added source - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The prose of the Home video section is choppy and the paragraphs need merging to create better flow
Merged and changed a bit - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the cost ranges up to 25 dollars per month in the United States, up to 26 pounds per episode in the UK, and up to 52 dollars per episode in Australia" - $25, £26, $56
Fixed - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, the last paragraphs of the Critical response section needs merging
Done - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph of the Awards and accolades section largely unsourced
Added source - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Overall, Game of Thrones has won 204 industry awards and has been nominated for 581" - unsourced
Every single one of the awards won and nominated has been sourced one by one in (List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones). What should I do?. Should I remove that line? - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to fail this again, so I'll leave this on hold until all can be addressed. The prose is generally good and well written, but there are some gaps in paragraphs that disrupt flow. Also, the lack of citations and some incorrect sourcing is a major barrier at the moment. If you have any questions, please let me know. JAGUAR  17:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I fixed all the things you mentioned above - AffeL (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: - AffeL (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Promoted. JAGUAR  22:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Most Emmys won

Just a note to say there appear to be some confusion about whether Game of the Thrones has won the most Emmys, for example citing that Saturday Night Live has won more. Some sources say GoT won the most Emmys for a "scripted series", some say "primetime series", or "any drama or comedy", or "narrative series". They are all valid. The term primetime usually refers to the 7pm up to 11pm TV slots, but Saturday Night Live is a late night show, therefore that would exclude it. SNL although may be scripted in parts, can also contain unscripted elements. I think "primetime scripted series" should cover all bases. If a source is needed for how it is different from SNL, then this one may be used. If you think it needs to be phrased differently to make it clearer, then by all means do so. Hzh (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Critical response section

There are two major inaccuracies in the General section under Critical Response. The first is that a table of Metacritic reviews are shown for a rating of each entire season. If you actually go to Metacritic and read the reviews (which are cited, by the way), they are only based on the episodes provided to the critics. For example, that means the entire Season 5 review is based on only the first 4 episodes, and the entire Season 6 review is only based on a single episode. While I realize this is more of a problem with the way Metacritic reviews series, this fact has to either be more clear or the graph should be removed entirely.

The second inaccuracy is that if you click on the links under the Metacritic review for any of the seasons, it sends you to the page for the specific season, where only the Rotten Tomatoes scores are shown. There are no mentions of those reviews in the specific season pages, while they occupy a large portion of the Critical Response section. Again, either the Metacritic graph should be removed and all mention of the scores removed, or the meaning of the scores clarified and added to the specific season pages. 75.135.186.185 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your statement about the Metacritic graph, as it is extremely deceptive to readers unaware of the facts you mentioned. The Rotten Tomatoes graph should suffice for critical reception as it is based on aggregation of reviews from across many different websites. Calibrador (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This article looks so much better than it did months ago, terrific job all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.107.28 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

American?

The intro says it is an "American" series, but it is funded by Ireland and mostly filmed in Europe. Can someone explain why it is considered to be American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs)

This isn't a reply to the question, but it may relate: I would recommend taking a look at the now-recently-closed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/PSE lead paragraphs, and the resultant overhaul of determining a series' nationality per this edit. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Country of origin

American....? It is funded by various european countries and mostly shot in the UK,Spain and Iceland. 

                                                             Though I am neither British (european) or American but         I do feel that most of the wiki. users are biased and working on some nationalist agena (American).If you don't think so take a look at Harry Potter and fantastic beasts. Ad2509singh (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Dude.. It's by HBO(American company), directed(List of Game of Thrones directors), written, created by Americans in America(David Benioff and D.B. Weiss) and it is based of A Song of Ice and Fire by American author George R. R. Martin. Just because they film something in another country does not make it from that country. The new star wars was filmed in Croatia... But is it a Croatien movie? - AffeL (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sex and violence - possible undue weight

A quick read through this article gave me pause at the sheer amount of coverage that the sex/violence complaints got here. Strictly speaking, those are minority views (although minority views held by somewhat notable people). At first blush, it feels like WP:UNDUE - compare the amount of writing on the sex/violence (which are opinions) to the paragraph about its critical reception (which are strictly factual - ratings and such). On top of that, the "justification" given by George R. Martin is mentioned almost in passing.

Some word stats as of the current edit, at the time I'm writing this:

  • Cultural influence: 380 words 2,324 characters
  • Critical response: 540 words 3,335 characters
  • Sex and violence: 670 words 4,275 characters

Am I alone here? Karunamon ✉ 02:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kind of long but what would you delete? Peter K Burian (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see undue weight here, because the length of the section reflects the number of reliable sources addressing this aspect of the series. Given that almost all reliable sources that have covered the "sex and violence" aspect of the series have described or reflected the themes mentioned here, it's also hardly a minority view - or are there any sources expressing the view that Game of Thrones is a non-violent series with no problematic sexual scenes? Lastly, a "critical reception" section is not "factual" in that it always reflects the opinions expressed by notable critics, which are necessarily, well, opinions.  Sandstein  18:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Karunamon ✉ 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Surprisingly, the article did not address one of the primary complaints to any extent: sexual violence against women (such as Sansa). I added HBO's comment about this. My content was condensed (very nicely) by User: Sandstein but yeah, the section is even longer now.
One way to condense the Sex, Violence section would be to summarize the complaints by critics into two sentence and then add the citations; readers can check those out if they want more specifics. IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the section needs much condensing, unless we want to create a spinoff article (WP:SS). In writing about fiction, we cover it from the perspective of the real world, guided by such questions as: what are reliable sources highlighting? What is the lasting impact of this work on culture at large? This means that this sort of criticism is exactly what articles should focus on. Just summarizing won't help much, as that would gloss over the evolution (such as it is) of GoT's tits-and-ass aspects from season to season: from almost burlesque titillation, to torture, to rape culture - and now in the most recent season, it seems, a sort of dialing back of these aspects, as if in response to criticism (although that is one facet still to be explored in the article).  Sandstein  19:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I will be guided by your expertise User:Sandstein. OK, let's not condense the section. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant information in the introduction

These two paragraphs do not belong in the introduction:

  • "Set on the fictional continents..."
  • "Game of Thrones has attracted..."

Place them somewhere else and instead, tell me what the series is about in the introduction, as I didn't see any short explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Explain why they do not belong there? And if you wish to contribute a short premise of the series, you're welcome to. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Game of Thrones. 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) 15:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Production companies

Why were they removed in the first place? there are production logos according to the conclusion of the end credits. 97.106.151.168 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot sections and changes to MOS:TVPLOT

The plot sections of the season articles were recently deleted without discussion by AlexTheWhovian citing MOS:WP:TVLOT in his edit summaries. He meant to link WP:TVPLOT or MOS:TVPLOT (which go to the same place). This section of the Manual of Style was updated shortly before, based on this discussion. (The discussion and the changes resulting from it are themselves being discussed here.)

It should be noted that the Manual of Style is a non-mandatory guideline, established to help editors make articles more consistent. Local consensus at each WikiProject and article can determine how it should be applied.

The update to MOS:TVPLOT includes:

  • "Just having a plot summary is not allowed". There cannot be a plot summary unless it establishes context for later content on production, reception, themes, etc.
  • "An article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary."
  • If there is a separate article for the episode list, then the series article's plot summary (overview or premise) should be "around 100 words per season".
  • Articles on individual episodes should have a plot summary of "no more than 400 words."
  • In addition to plot sections, the lead "should contain a sentence or two to summarize the overall storyline."

I personally feel that with a complex series like Game of Thrones, a summary of the overall plot arcs is more useful than the episode-by-episode plots. However, that's just my opinion. There may have to be a bit of restructuring amongst the articles in response to the TVPLOT changes. I'd appreciate opinions and discussion from other editors. - Reidgreg (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To editors who pass by this discussion and with to contribute, please note that it should be kept to a centralized location, so as the discussion already exists, you should considered giving your opinions of this by contributing to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § TVPLOT reverted. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"First", "second" and "third" "story arcs"?

The second paragraph of the lead is nonsense. I don't know if its numeric ordering of these "story arcs" (which actually take place and are shown simultaneously) is supported by secondary sources in the body, but if it is those sources are wrong. The "third story arc" is introduced in the first minutes of the first episode, the "second" later on in the first episode, and the "first" only really becomes a dynastic conflict among competing claimants for succession at the end of the first season and into the second, with with other noble families fighting for independence being suddenly introduced in the last episode of the first season. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Future Air Dates

The current format list the date that a series was first broadcast and the date it ended. this is clearly listed as past-tense and the upcoming series should not be included in the current format. Anything could happen between now and july and as so it should be made clear that the current dates are expected/scheduled. CaptainPedge | Talk 00:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. - AffeL (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I very much disagree CaptainPedge | Talk 00:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it's fine, it's been like this for years with no complaint. Note that the past dates have no sources in the table, given that they're already happened, and future dates keep their sources until they come to happen. Exactly the same thing happens with {{Series overview}}; the dates are added with a source if they have not occurred yet, then the source is removed when the event occurs. If new information does indeed come to light about the dates between now and July, then we will update them as required. -- AlexTW 05:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Game of Thrones. 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) 23:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Season 7 split?

I thought this would be of note to include somewhere. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08lnkvv/the-graham-norton-show-series-21-episode-1 At 22:54 Gemma Whelan talks about how the final season is actually "split into two" and that there's 8 episodes "next year". I haven't seen any news outlets pick up on this at all but sorry if it has already been mentioned. Wasn't sure which talk page to post this on. 86.183.69.103 (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not actually "split into two". She must have been confused when she said that shit. Also next year their will be six episode for the eight season. - AffeL (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
She is probably more talking about the final set of episodes, which is split into two - Season 7 of 7 episodes, and Season 8 of 6 episodes. AffeL, do try to remain civil and keep your language for the real-world. Cheers. -- AlexTW 01:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"under Lord Commander Jeor Mormont"

This hasn't been true since season 2; is name-checking James Cosmo in the context of a plot-synopsis rather than just saying Other notable cast members have included: ... really that important? I seriously didn't know whether to just remove under Lord Commander Jeor Mormont (James Cosmo), tag it as needing some kind of nuance or up-to-date citation, or just ignoring it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It is true to the character. The "Cast and characters" section is not about the shows plot, it's about the characters and cast. James Cosmo is mentioned because he was credited as a starring role, same with all the others mentioned. - AffeL (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the claim that such-and-such characters serve in the Night's Watch under Lord Commander so-and-so is about the plot, and it hasn't been accurate since the third season. Jeor Mormont was a relatively minor character (in terms of screen time) even before he died -- so do we even need to mention him? And what do you mean by "credited as a starring role"? I've seen similar claims made on other articles on TV shows and films with the claim that it was based on MOSFILM or MOSTV, but when I went and checked, I couldn't find any reference to such inclusion criteria for cast lists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
If you go on and watch the opening Game of Thrones title sequence to any of the episodes he's in(season 2 and 3), then you will see his name pop up. The "cast and characters" section says "The main cast is listed below:" And then it list every single main actor and their role in the show, so yes he needs to be mentioned. Jeor Mormont was the Lord Commander when he was alive. Again this is not a plot summary or anything like that. If you can find another way to mention him, then go ahead. - AffeL (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't want to nitpick this, but The main cast is listed [my emphasis] below: is not accurate. The succeeding paragraphs are not formatted like a list, and they don't look like one. I hadn't actually noticed until you pointed it out, but if it was a list of cast members considered "main" (according to the definition you provided) I would actually have no problem with it. Friends#Characters does this pretty handily. Giving a separate bullet point for every single character who has ever had their actor's name pop up in the opening credits would probably make the section look somewhat longer vertically. But including all the relevant cast information we currently give while cutting out the crufty plot-summary stuff (which describes certain mutually exclusive periods in the characters' histories and so is inaccurate when read as a flowing piece of prose) would probably decrease the net byte count. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a feeling the parenthetical clause in my last sentence is going to be misinterpreted, so I'll elaborate: Ned's illegitimate son Jon Snow [...] serve[s] [...] under Lord Commander Jeor Mormont was not true for the first several episodes of season one, stopped being true during season three, and since early in season five has been laughably inaccurate (Jon Snow is the Lord Commander). young Gilly hasn't liv[ed] north of the Wall since almost her introduction (it was her off-screen status quo before she first appeared), and the way the sentence is structured it reads like she is a "warrior" (warriors X, Y and young Z is grammatically identical to warriors young Z, X and Y; presumably what was meant was warriors X and Y, and young Z). Theon stopped being Ned's ward when Ned died, which was long before either Roose or Ramsay first appeared on the show, who stopped being House Stark's vassals after less than a season (and were never referred to as Ned's vassals, as Ned was dead before either of them first appeared). Shae is not "Tyrion's mistress" by the normal definitions of that word. I don't recall Varys being referred to as a "Lord" at any point, but I might be mistaken -- in the world of GOT, can eunuchs become feudal lords? I could go on. A simple "X plays Y.<NEXT BULLET POINT>" list format would solve almost all of these problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Dubious cast descriptions

"young Gilly": Is her age ever specifically mentioned in the show? In the sentence it looks like she is being compared to Ygritte and Tormund, and she is most associated with Sam, and according to AWOIAF she is older than either Ygritte or Sam; the actress is slightly younger than Sam or Ygritte's actors, but that's not really a good reason. I think I recall Maester Aemon referring to her as "young" once, but that's kind of irrelevant because virtually every character is younger than him.

"Ned's illegitimate son Jon Snow": I don't personally buy into R+L=J for the books (mostly because Preston Jacobs has brainwashed me), but didn't HBO confirm it for the show? List of Game of Thrones characters states as much.

"The Wildlings living north of the Wall": One of the three characters listed died while still officially "living north of the Wall", but of the other two one hasn't set foot north of the Wall since season three, and the other hasn't been living there since season four.

"Bolton's bastard son": This is dubious, since it depends on whether one considers a legitimization document from King Tommen to be auhoritative. Say what you want about Tommen secretly being a bastard born of incest, there are a lot of characters in the show who deny the legitimacy of Robert, and so wouldn't care if Tommen was Robert's son or not. Yes, when introduced Ramsay was a bastard, but he's Roose's son regardless, so removing the word "bastard" would probably be best.

"[Cersei Lannister] shares a loveless marriage [and] has taken her twin [...] as her lover": This heavily implies that the affair between Jaime and Cersei began after Cersei married. I don't recall whether this was ever mentioned in the show, but in the books it's definitely not true.

"attended by his mistress Shae": "mistress"? What? This was technically true for one or two episodes between when Tyrion was married and was convinced by Varys that Shae had fled the kingdom. But it looks a lot more like someone thought "mistress" was synonymous with "lover".

"are running for their lives": Again, what? There were two assassination attempts on Danaerys, both afer Viserys's death. Does this refer to events immediately after Robert's rebellion that aren't depicted in the show?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_of_Thrones/Archive_3&oldid=1136749937"