Jump to content

Talk:Game of Thrones/Archive 4

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

Removal of maintenance tags

[1]

@AffeL: Could you read and try to understand the rationales for each template before reverting? None of your edit summaries (!) adequately addressed the issues with the out-of-date sources, the unsourced claims, the nonsense, and inaccurate (even if technically "verifiable") claims. I fixed the article text to accord to what your edit summary implied you read it as saying (which I have no problem with).

But this simply doesn't make sense to me. You removed a tag on article text that simply doesn't make sense on its face and is not sourced (compare what our article text says to what the source says -- they are not the same thing). We could list 100 languages that are heard by less than five million people on any given week that a GOT episode aired, but what does that have to do with anything? And when the BBC attributed it to some anonymous, apparently non-BBC, source, we shouldn't attribute it to the BBC.

Generally, it is considered extremely bad form to remove maintenance templates without addressing (or even making it clear that you have understood) the problems.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"stannis, tywin, margaery, tommen" are main characters now? OK, but what about the plot armour that Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Jaime, Cersei, Sansa, and Arya (especially!) have donned since season 4? You can't pretend that main characters have continued to be killed off at the same rate as before. An up-to-date source should be located, or the article text should be nuanced to reflect the age of the source. Since you are the one who removed the tag, it's your call.
And Youtube is not a reliabe source is like, your opinion, man. YouTube videos that are self-published are reliable for the opinions of their authors, and those that are not self-published are as reliable as anything else. I did not attempt to cite the video essay in question in an article (I gave it as an example of one well-regarded critic in 2017 making the factual claim that main characters in the show who hadn't already been killed off in the books prior to 2011 have plot armour), so at best you accused me of something I didn't do. Also, making a generic claim like "YouTube isn't reliable" that shows an ignorance of sourcing policies and guidelines is a pretty clear indicator that one didn't even watch the video in question before declaring it "unreliable". And again -- unreliable for what?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
And no: sources about the book series that have nothing to do with the show (it predates the premier by four years; it does mention a rumoured HBO TV adaptation) are not reliable sources for discussion of the show. This edit summary completely missed the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I have now added a source for that. - AffeL (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Youtube fan channels are not regared as reliabe in Wikipedia. Season 1: Killed Ned, Robert and Viserys. Season 2 killed Renly, Season 3: Red Wedding. Season 4 Joffrey, Tywin. Season 5 Stannis, Season 6: Almost everyone in Kings Landing and Ramsay Bolton. All of these characters are listed as starring, so yes they are main characters. The one tag removal that you mention that did not make sense, actually does make sense since it is sourced from BBC. If you disagree with any of these you should hade brought this up in the talk page do begin with. - AffeL (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (responding to your originally published comment; I don't have time to read the update, as I need to sleep) Youtube is not regared as reliabe in Wikipedia. Citation needed? Seriously, I've been here eight years longer than you (from back when nothing on YouTube or Wikipedia was considered reliable) and I've seen a lot of new or relatively new users make this claim, but they can never back it up. Again, CONTEXTMATTERS -- I didn't try to cite the video in question for a factual claim. I wasn't even trying to cite the video for its author's opinion; I wasn't trying to cite it at all. Season 1: Killed Ned, Robert and Viserys. Season 2 killed Renly, Season 3: Red Wedding. Season 4 Joffrey, Tywin. Season 5 Stannis, Season 6: Almost everyone in Kings Landing and Ramsay Bolton. All of these characters are listed as starring, so yes they are main characters. Your opinion that such-and-such characters were killed off to maintain suspense and to keep in line with the show's supposed tendency to kill main characters, rather than that they had no idea where to take those plots, is your opinion, and you are at least as "unreliable" as this guy. The one tag removal that you mention that did not make sense, actually does make sense since it is sourced from BBC. No. The argument that something is sourced to the BBC and so must automatically be relevant makes no sense. The BBC isn't an encyclopedia; we are. If you disagree with any of these you should hade brought this up in the talk page do begin with. No. Tagging nonsense, gibberish, unsourced claims and the like does not require prior consent on the talk page, and someone with an article:talk ratio of 23.6:1 should not be telling someone at 2.7:1 that they need to make better use of the talk page is ... pretty rich. You should familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, particularly WP:OWN, WP:NOT and WP:BOLD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so personal opinions do not belong on wikipedia and you do not have any real sources for anything you claimed. Also I added another source along with the BBC claim. If you make controversial edits, then you should take it to the talk page. What does being on wikipedia longer than me have to do with anything? I can tell by your comments that you are a book purist who is editing wikipedia based on personal beliefs and not what is factual or sourced. And again Youtube is for the third time not reliabe. I can easily make a Youtube channel and claim that "Leonardo won an Oscar for Titanic" or that Game of Thrones is not the most Emmy winning show of all time. So that won't make it true at all. - AffeL (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't make controversial edits. I tagged unsourced and/or poorly sourced content. My "costumes/armour" edit was apparently noticed by you and not reverted -- would it really have been better for me to come to the talk page first and ask you to edit your article for me? I don't see the second source you added for the Insular Celtic languages remark; did you forget to save?
Self-published sources by respected media critics are reliable for the opinions of said critics, whether they were uploaded to YouTube or to said critics' personal websites, or published in book form. Your reference above to "fan channels" is nonsense -- if the respected media critic in question was a "non-fan", as in they didn't like the show, would their self-published opinions somehow be more reliable? You could make such videos, but you would be making easily falsifiable historical claims, not expressing the opinion that main characters from the books who aren't dead as of the end of ADWD have plot armour in the show, and you would not be a reputable media critic. You can tell me "YouTube is not reliable" as many times as you want, but that won't change my opinion on the matter (informed by the numerous times this has been brought up on WP:RSN).[2][3]
But again -- why are you honing in on his? You are turning WP:BURDEN on its head by demanding that I produce a reliable (in your opinion) source that explicitly contradicts the material already in the article that you claim is just fine as it is and doesn't need a more up-to-date source. The current source is still reliable for pop culture's impression of the show around the time season four began airing, and so could be used for our articles on individual seasons of the show prior to 2014, but it is not reliable for claims about the show as a whole as of 2017. My opinion alone is reason enough to make the claim that your source is out of date and you need a newer one -- the fact that I can link to a self-published video essay by a well-regarded critic of the show is completely peripheral. Why are you trying to distract from the main point of my edit like this?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just for the record, it would be better if you put this discussion back on track, probably discussing the individual points separately so that other editors can follow. For example, while I would also welcome a more recent source for "Main characters are regularly killed off, and this has been credited with developing tension among viewers.", arguing about that youtube video is futile; it will not be accepted as a reliable source to be used for an update. (Hijiri88 said it himself: "Don't have a particularly reliable source discussing this, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBHEC-_uRvs&t=371s is a self-published video essay by a respected member of the fan community".) Unless a reliable source is found, I do not see the need to add the tag (checking for out of date details, we could tag a large portion of wiki - for example, the majority of info about companies are outdated). On the other hand when someone feels the tag is needed I would not remove it and make such a fuss about it. But I am also worried by Hijiri 88's misrepresentation of some of the sources. For example, his "some of the armor worn by characters being influenced by medieval Japan and Persia" is not what the source says. The source speaks about costumes, not armor, and you can be inspired by, say, Japanese armor, and create a normal (i.e. non-armor) costume based on it. (Source: The costumes in Game of Thrones are epic. [...] The Bedouins inspired the look of the Dothraki, the desert oasis of Qarth owes a nod to Persia and the Middle East, and the wildlings north of the Wall wear their fur the same way as the Inuit tribes (that would be fur side in, skin side out). She was also inspired by Japanese and Persian armor, but you won't find literal translations in the series."; Hijiri88's edit summary: "to most readers this would not imply we are talking specifically about armor") If I am mot missing something, we (the source) are NOT talking specifically about armor. So in general I prefer the "original", safer, time-tested wording over Hijiri88's edits. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that mentioning the YouTube video was a bad idea, but hindsight is 20/20. I was assuming that anyone who read the reason for the tag would understand that requesting an up-to-date source can be done with no sources (reliable or not) that explicitly contradicted the outdated source.
Anyway, as far as I am aware the only reason to find a "reliable" source that contradicts the outdated source would be to add new information. I don't care about updating the content of this article (it's a mess, and I have better things to do with my life than fix all of its problems); I would have been happy with an not-outdated source that (inaccurately) supports the current wording. But if anyone wants a "reliable" source, I'll look around for one. It will still be essentially an opinion piece, like most of this article's sources, just one that isn't self-published, like the one I alluded to in the maintenance tag reason. But as I said elsewhere, I'm not actually interested in RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS here: I would be happy to keep the text as written, with a more recent source that ignores the plot armour. The only thing finding a "reliable" source that contradicts the current one will make is that I or someone else will be able to state that in later seasons main characters have tended not to die off as frequently.
You do appear to be missing something about the costumes problem, as the source is talking specifically about armour. Ctrl+F the source for either "Japanese" or "Persian": both words appear only once, in the sentence She was also inspired by Japanese and Persian armor. I am not actually sure how general Anglosphere readers would interpret this, but for someone who's spent the better part of the last decade living in Japan, our original The series' costumes are inspired by a number of cultures, including medieval Japan and Persia implies kimonos, which is not what the source said, and is completely bogus; the same is no doubt true of Persian dress (although I am not sure, GBooks supports my assumption). And linking Japanese armor from the word "Japan" when we don't mention armour anywhere in our text is a violation of WP:EASTER for the same reason. Your concern that the source doesn't explicitly mention armour in the show but rather costumes in the show drawing inspiration from historical armour is valid in theory, but in practice assuming that the source is talking about fictional armour being inspired by historical armour is no worse than assuming that the costumes inspired by Japanese and Persian armour were not specifically armour, and as I said above the previous wording very much implied that assumption. If you want to change it to read something like The costumes used in the show drew inspiration from a number of sources, such as Japanese and Persian armour. I would be fine with that.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"armour" vs. "costumes"

@Punkminkis: The persian source has nothing to do with armor[4] Are you joking? Did you read the source? The only time the word "Persian" appears in the source is in She was also inspired by Japanese and Persian armor. It also seems you still don't understand my WP:EASTER concerns. They are elaborated (in excruciating detail) above -- if you still have any questions, I would be happy to address them. Anyway, what do you think about my latest proposed solution to the problem: The costumes used in the show drew inspiration from a number of sources, such as Japanese and Persian armour.? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about the link that leads to Persian clothing. Nothing in that page says armor, just talks about clothing. The only mention of armor I see is the Japanese link. Also, Dothraki, Wildlings, and Nights Watch all talk about dress and animal skins, not armor.PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 11:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Punkminkis: Okay, but the source isn't talking about Persian clothing. It's talking about Persian armour. It's really bad form to revert someone's editing the text to more closely match the content of a source, when you have not read the source and are working based on what the Wikipedia text before and after says.
Also, please don't recontextualize other editors' posts like you did here: I posted the above immediately below my reply to another editor about this same issue, and I only cut the words "Have you been following this discussion?" before saving because it seemed a bit too confrontational. But you really should have read the talk page discussion before reverting, regardless.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Just so you know, I'm subject to 1RR because of a few brief two-way edit-wars from about two years back, so I can't revert back without your consent. You can either discuss here with me, self-revert, or wait for me to be able to revert back myself. It seems what happened here was a good-faith mistake on your part -- if you check the source, you will see exactly what I mean. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that between 90% and 99.999% of the time when Wikipedians say "check the source", they mean "check the external reliable source being cited", not "check the Wiki source code". You're relatively new, so I'm not blaming you for not knowing this (you seem willing to admit that you made a mistake, after all); just pointing out where I think the misunderstanding comes from. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88' proposed version is OK. But compared to the original (below) it is mostly a stylistic improvement, with some more precise wording. The problem has always been Hijiri 88's statement that Japanese and Persian armor influenced armor used in the series, which is not the case. Armor influenced costumes in general. As for the wkl easter egg, I do not care.
1) The series' costumes are inspired by a number of cultures, including medieval Japan and Persia. (original)
2) The armor worn by characters in the series is inspired by a number of cultures, including medieval Japan and Persia. (Hijiri 88)
3) The series' costumes are inspired by a number of cultures, with some of the armor worn by characters being influenced by medieval Japan and Persia. (Hijiri 88) #2
4) The costumes used in the show drew inspiration from a number of sources, such as Japanese and Persian armour. (Hijiri 88) #3 (proposed) WikiHannibal (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The only reason I edited your talk was that the armor debate should be separate from "Removal of maintenance tags"
I apologize, I did not see the external source.
I agree with WikiHannibal, as long as you avoid saying that Japanese and Persian armor influenced armor, your proposed version is OK. Making the edit. PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 13:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Punkminkis: @WikiHannibal: Okay. I just reverted another edit related to the issue below, so I'll implement wording #4 in once 24 hours have passed. As I said above, I'm under 1RR, and the last thing I need right now is an admin getting tricked into blocking me based on a technicality (no joke -- this has happened several times in the past). If either of you want to make the edit in the mean time that would be fine. I don't seem to have convinced either of you of the actual merits of the edit beyond the cosmetic, so I won't hold it against you if you couldn't be bothered.
(On a related note, it's kind of nitpicky but both of you still seem convinced that the source says historical armour influenced costumes in general, which is not what the source says. This kind of eisegesis is cool if you want to do it on your own time, but you should avoid it on Wikipedia. I did it too, but I was justified because at least I was improving on the what was there before I got here; most editors would probably agree that it's the less shitty of two similarly shitty options to assume that armour inspired armour than to assume that armour inspired non-armour.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I am really convinced that it is more probable the source says historical armour influenced costumes in GoT, i.e. that it influenced not only armor: The costumes in Game of Thrones are epic. [...] The Bedouins inspired the look of the Dothraki, the desert oasis of Qarth owes a nod to Persia and the Middle East, and the wildlings north of the Wall wear their fur the same way as the Inuit tribes (that would be fur side in, skin side out). She was also inspired by Japanese and Persian armor, but you won't find literal translations in the series." In this case, costume is a hyperonym to armor (as the armor used in the show is "costume armor"), so it is a safer wording. (I do not see any convincing evidence in the source that says Japanese armor influnced GoT armor.) WikiHannibal (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I find it difficult to imagine how Japanese or Persian armour could inspire specifically non-armour costuming, and a Google Image search appears to agree with me (almost all the images are of GOT characters wearing armour). That said, if you don't specifically oppose the amendment (thank you for that, by the way!), continuing to argue is purely academic. But I'm always up for an academic debate about the proper reading of an ambiguous source, if you want to continue on one of our user talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Newer source for claim that main characters in the show die frequently?

@AffeL: I don't know about this. I read through the article (I was unable to find the original interview -- the link is apparently broken, as it is an interview with Kij Johnson and doesn't mention Martin at all, and the interview no longer appears to be available on Galaxy's Edge -- Google is giving me grief, but type "martin site:galaxysedge.com" into it; two results come back, neither of them the interview), and I see no indication that Martin or the interviewer was discussing the TV show, and it seems a lot more likely that he was talking about the books.

The only references to the show are renowned for killing off major characters unexpectedly in his bestselling novel series A Song of Ice and Fire, adapted for TV as A [sic] Game of Thrones, a writer, even a fantasy writer, has an obligation to tell the truth and the truth is, as we say in Game of Thrones, all men must die, and the title, which seems to be either a very poor summary of the article or using "Game of Thrones" as a synonym for A Song of Ice and Fire (as in the books). The latter option is actually extremely common -- Stephen King (who definitely knew what he was doing) did it in a conversation with GRRM here -- but the former seems equally likely given that the writer mistakenly called the show "A Game of Thrones" (which is far less common). Either way, though, the overwhelming majority of the article is about Martin's writings and not the show, which makes sense given the fact that the article appeared in theguardian.com/books/.

Given that my point is that the show, when it was a straight adaptation rather than something more approaching "licensed fan-fiction", tended to kill off characters in a similar fashion to the books, but now has done exactly what GRRM says he tries not to do in his books, a source specifically discussing the books and not the show completely misses the point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The original interview is for example at https://web.archive.org/web/20160526050205/http://www.galaxysedge.com/mint.htm. What Martin meant by “Game of Thrones", as quoted above, I leave to other editors. However, based on the preceding question "How do you see that progression in yourself from probably television’s best love story ever, Beauty and the Beast, to Game of Thrones, which is very different?", it seems Martin might have been talking about the show. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for digging that up! (Maybe you should contact The Guardian and tell them that their link is broken and the archived interview is there. ;-) )
Yeah, okay. I still personally think GRRM was not talking about the show (he was mostly talking about his work, including maybe his work on early seasons of GOT), but as I have said both here and elsewhere, I don't really care that this article contains counterfactual information attributed to sources that appear to be talking about earlier seasons specifically. Eventually (probably after GOT ends) reliable sources will start pointing out that when the show was a straightforward adaptation it killed off main characters a lot, but later seasons (when the show became more "licensed fan-fiction" than adaptation) introduced plot armour for popular main characters, and only killed them off because they couldn't decide how to resolve their plot-lines otherwise. (I guarantee you, seasons seven and eight will not explain what Margaery's long-term plan in gaming the High Sparrow was -- the whole point of killing her and all the other Tyrells was probably to dodge the issue.) But I'm happy to wait. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
You can use the same logic with the books, saying that George killed Robb and Ned Stark because he did not know how to resolve their stories. You are using personal opinions on what you thing about the tv show to argue your point. And to be fair way more peolpe have been killed of in the show. Plus it does not matter what the behind the scene reason is for the death of all the characters, the fact is that at the end of the day main characters are regularly killed off. - AffeL (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's kind of off-topic (since I already said I am done trying to "fix" that part of the article for the time being) so I won't ask you here what elements of Robb and Ned's plots were left unresolved and now never will be resolved because the author just wanted to avoid dealing with them. You can tell me on my talk page. For that matter, though, we don't know yet whether Jon is coming back in the books, but it was painfully obvious what was going to happen with Jon in the show because the character has plot armour and they had gone out of their way to tell you that Mel was capable of reviving him (plus there's the fact that this was already a popular fan theory, and realizing popular fan theories involving Jon and Mel is what season six was all about). And George would almost certainly not have Arya get stabbed multiple times, fall into a filthy river but not get an infection, and then some time later get magical life-saving surgery from someone she had recently befriended. You can message me on talk page if you can think of a single character who magically survived something like that anywhere in GRRM's books. Or, for that matter, a character who is both a POV character in the books and has been a main cast member since the first season who has died in the show since season 4. (Yes, I know some will probably die in seasns 7 and 8, because the show is ending.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
That said, AffeL, please stop adding more refs that do not verify the article content in order to further emphasize a WP:POINT you want me to accept that I am under no obligation as a free adult to accept. Sources that list the characters who died in season six are not reliable sources for the claim that main characters are killed, which is still all the text says. Yes, Areo Hotah is a POV character in the books; the doesn't make him a "main character" in the show.
And no, I don't want you to add the text "More characters died in the season six finale than in any previous episode." to the article. That would only make the problem of what you are currently doing worse. Treating the article talk page as a forum to discuss whether the show kills more characters than the books is a violation of talk page guidelines, but adding text to the article solely to emphasize you side of that discussion because I don't want to discuss it with you here would be even worse.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Never said Areo Hotah is a main character in the show, he is obviously a very minor character. The last source I added clearly states that the show is famous for killing of major characters, and it says that the season six finale featured numerous main characters deaths. And I don't want to add "More characters died in the season six finale than in any previous episode." in the main page, as that would belong in said episodes page or something. - AffeL (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
At least two of the sources you added are exhaustive lists of characters who were killed in the last season, and one of them names Areo Hotah in its title. A source that lists all characters who died is not in and of itself a reliable source for the claim that main characters die, since by definition it gives similar weight to minor character deaths, and saying that the show is famous for killing off major characters is not the same as saying the show killed off main characters and continues to do so. Darth Vader is famous for saying "Luke, I am your father", but that doesn't make it so. You may not want to add that text to the article -- I didn't say you wanted to do so, I just asked you not to -- but your recent edits have similarly altered the article to address your own personal dispute with me over whether main characters have continued to be killed off. The sentence in question now has five citations piled on top of each other -- the only two other place's in the article's running prose that have more than three are the sentence about online piracy and the sentence about a main character being raped in the most unpopular/controversial episode in the history of the show. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambig header?

As I said a few sections up, "Game of Thrones" is common shorthand for A Song of Ice and Fire, and the head note does link to that article, but in a rather awkward fashion, since For the novel in the series A Song of Ice and Fire, see A Game of Thrones. doesn't imply that we are linking that article for disambig purposes, but if it weren't for disambig purposes, there would be no reason to link it or even name it -- For the novel, see A Game of Thrones. would be fine. What exactly is wrong with For the book series on which it is based, see A Song of Ice and Fire. For the first novel in the series, see A Game of Thrones.?

Or should I say "was wrong"? I seem to recall this having been how it was worded a few years back last time I thought about it. Was it discussed and there was some consensus for it to be worded as it currently is? (Asking here up front rather than BOLDly making the edit myself because it seems highly likely this is the case. Or at least that there was something someone would want to call "consensus", even if it was, for example, a 3-2 !vote with the dissenters giving up and going to write articles after a long and and unproductive back-and-forth.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It not necessarily "wrong" but rather that is is most likely than AGoT is what is being searched for than ASOIAF. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Really, though? I've heard people refer to the book series as "Game of Thrones" countless times, but when talking about the first book specifically they almost uniformly insert the "A" so as to distinguish it from the show, the book series as a whole, and the in-universe concept that is contrasted with the song of ice and fire. If I hadn't watched every episode of the show, listened to two of the audiobooks, and read countless fan theories and wiki articles, and so was like the majority of Wikipedia's readers, I would probably read the current note as implying that the show is an adaptation of the first book only. That, plus the fact that readers who have heard of and/or watched the show and want to find out about the books (again, probably more than are specifically aware of both) are more likely to be looking for the article on the book series rather than just on the first book (our [[A Game of Thrones] is pretty bare -- something between 56% and 64% of its word-count is just plot summary).
As an aside, I checked, and:
  • The current title of this page came about because I made a technical argument that having "Game of Thrones" redirect here made the parenthetical disambiguator pointless, an IP made a silly and demonstrably wrong argument that the TV series is the undisputed primary topic, I disagreed with the IP, and User:Sandstein interpreted us both as agreeing with him and moved the page, even though my same technical argument had been made and shot down during an RM that hadn't passed four years earlier.
  • The only other time in the history of the talk page that "disambig" has received more than passing mention was about ten months ago when User:Nyuszika7H said in a comment focused on the soundtracks and video games that the disambig pages were overkill, which if I am reading it correctly missed the point that both the first book and the book series are roughly equally well-known as the TV show and are both frequently called by the same name, and three articles is enough for a disambig page.
  • Talk:A Game of Thrones (disambiguation) is all but empty.
Essentially, if it weren't for Wikipedians' discussing an article on a TV show that was still two years away from its premier, there would have been no prior discussion of this matter except for me saying something before I changed my mind.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

[5]

No idea what the rationale for this being added in the first place was. It was re-added two or three times after I removed it by a user with poor English, worse communication skills, and even worse still ability to properly read sources. Now, in this particular instance our article text is directly supported by the cited source, but the problems are numerous:

  • The information is randomly cherry-picked Why these three languages in particular? There are thousands of languages still spoken in the real world that have fewer speakers than these three,one of which is the first official language of a country of four million people and is universally studied in schools in that country on a daily basis. The BBC have their own standards for inclusion in random pieces on their website (I assume), but on Wikipedia this kind of thing is banned under WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
  • The information is unencyclopedic What does denigrating contemporary insular Celtic languages relative to the invented languages in GOT add to our readers knowledge of GOT?
  • The information is probably wrong (I'm talking about the claim that the languages inGOT are heard more than Irish, Scottish and Welsh, not the obviously true claim that this has been claimed by someone.) GOT is broadcast for a total of around ten hours a year. Maybe what the source means is that during those ten hours (during which time most people in Ireland and Britain are asleep) these languages are heard by more people than the Celtic languages in question, but if we are talking about the total number of sentences that are uttered and listened to in these languages by people around the world, year-round, which is something linguists would almost certainly be more interested in, then the claim we cite is almost certainly inaccurate.

Note that prior talk page consensus is almost never required to make an edit to any article except in extremely controversial topic areas such as the Israel-Palestine dispute, and demanding prior consensus is a clear violation of the spirit of WP:BOLD. I actually think that it's very unlikely other third parties will show up here and either support or oppose my edit. So far User:AffeL has completely ignored my multiple talk page messages and edit summaries on this issue in which I have presented a bunch of well-reasoned rationales in support of my edit, while all he has done is demand consensus. This is an extremely problematic editing style (I"'m done mincing words: it's edit-warring), and AffeL should have been blocked for it a long time ago. (Or, rather, he should not have been unblocked when he made an insincere apology for his behaviour and promised never to cause trouble again.) If it continues he will at the very least be topic-banned very soon.

And my edit will of course be restored if there is no clear opposition from anyone with any kind of policy-based rationale, as so far there has not been.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with this, the sentance is sourced and is not random. You don't have to bully me for my "poor English". Try to be respectful, please. BBC is a reliable source, last time I checked. - AffeL (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
AffeL, it's pretty clear that you would oppose this edit just because I was the one who made it at this point. You obviously didn't read any of the multiple times I tried to provide a rationale for said edit on this talk page or in my edit summaries (and maybe even on your talk page, I forget), and you specifically said that the reason you don't read talk comments is because of your English level. It's therefore not "bullying" you to point out that you can't demand talk page consensus for edits you yourself have been refusing to discuss on the talk page.
And drop this whole "X is a reliable source" nonsense already. I have asked you about 8,000,000 times to stop responding to things I didn't say and start actually reading what I did say.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There are some glaring mistakes in your reasoning.
  • Yes, the information could be considered "cherry-picked", but that term assumes there are other sources that claim the languages are heard more often than, say, Mlabri or Lawa for example. The sentence in question is obviously meant to demonstrate the popularity of the show by noting the constructed languages are heard more than some natural languages (i.e. it's not "indiscriminate"). The fact that these three natural languages were chosen is most probably due to the fact that these were the three the source chose to make a comparison. If you can find other sources that mention other natural languages, then we could decide which one(s) to use to get the point across. Until then, this is the only source we have, and it only mentions these three languages. You can't "cherry-pick" from a pool of one.
  • I don't think it is "unencyclopedic". It is an interesting fact that, as I say above, is meant to demonstrate the popularity of the show and how much it permeates the culture. Furthermore, it's not "denigrating" in the least. It's a fact (whether true or not). Facts aren't "denigrating", but personal POV might interpret them to be so. Saying the moon shines brighter than Venus doesn't denigrate Venus; it's just the way it is.
  • I seriously doubt that it is wrong. Yes, the show's original broadcast is only "10 hours per year" (which, btw, is seen by up to 8 million people per episode) but you conveniently left out rebroadcasts, DVDs/BluRays, online viewing, and, most importantly, pirating. Game of Thrones has consistently been the most pirated TV show, downloaded over 48 million times in 2014 alone.
Note also that you could not be more wrong about your interpretation of WP:BOLD. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is the "explanatory supplement" to the BOLD guideline you mentioned. Talkpage consensus is fundamental to how articles are edited and improved. Being "BOLD" is just the first step in that process. It is only the "jumpstart" to the real process that creates great articles: discussion and consensus-building. You and AffeL obviously have some sort of history with which I am not familiar, but this fact is sourced, relevant, provides context to understand the popularity of the show, and I haven't seen a valid reason to remove it. So I am inclined to keep it in the article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@WilliamThweatt: No, you are the one who could not be more wrong about your interpretation of WP:BOLD. Giving "no consensus" as the sole rationale for a revert is way out of line. The only possible scenario where it could be acceptable would be if the edit one was reverting went against some previous talk page consensus, but even there "no consensus" would not be the sole rationale as it was here. BRD is an essay and one I like quite a lot, but the problem is that it assumes a willingness on the part of the one doing the reverting to engage in talk page discussion. If you read AffeL's "response to me" above (or indeed virtually anything he has written here, or on his user talk page, or on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Dinklage/archive1, or on [[Talk:Olenna Tyrell, or on...) you will see that BRD could not really have been applied here. If you revert an edit someone made in good faith with a good faith rationale, you need to provide some sort of counter-rationale, not just "no consensus". You can ask CurtisNaito about how that works out in the long run. Anyway...
that term assumes there are other sources that claim the languages are heard more often than, say, Mlabri or Lawa for example I don't know whether such sources exist or not, but I wouldn't argue in favour of incorporating that text into the article even if they did, so it's really beside the point.
It's a fact (whether true or not). Umm... maybe in a philosophical sense. But are we really going to start an argument about the nature of truth? The fact is that only a tiny proportion of the dialogue in the show is in these constructed languages.
Facts aren't "denigrating", but personal POV might interpret them to be so. Well, yes, and if it were only my POV that would be one thing, but we're talking about a state broadcaster associated with a government whose actions have historically, and arguably still are, negatively affecting the survival prospects of these three languages in particular, and the BBC specifically has a checkered record on this matter.[6][7] (I admit upfront that I cherry-picked these from the first page of these results.) You should interpret my bullet points in light of each other, not as isolated units. I don't think you were thinking the same thing when you wrote what I quoted you as saying in this paragraph as when you said The fact that these three natural languages were chosen is most probably due to the fact that these were the three the source chose to make a comparison.
I seriously doubt that it is wrong. That would depend on your interpretation. Yes, the two sentences of Dothraki that Jason Momoa spoke about a minute before killing Viserys were probably heard more than any two sentences of Irish, Scottish or Welsh uttered in 2011. But there are thousands of people who conduct the majority of their daily affairs in those languages, and tens of thousands more who probably heard any two random sentences of similar length (and a whole lot more) in the Ordinary level Irish Leaving Certificate examination listening comprehension that year. If a linguist had ever actually counted up the total number of "words" uttered in Dothraki/Valyrian in the show (I sometimes wonder how we even quantify "words" with fictional languages, but that's irrelevant) then multiplied them by however many millions of "listeners" of this show, they would probably come to about thirty minutes to one hour of programming (even over six years) as heard by 48 million people, if we used your estimate for 2014 (even though I don't think any Dothraki was actually spoken in season 4). Now, 48 million people don't watch TG4 and I don't want to start multiplying random numbers, but your estimate would amount to roughly 48 million "hearer-hours", and ... ugh. This is confusing and pointless. My point is that while it might technically be accurate to say that "more people have heard" these languages than those ones, that information is meaningless, when the amount of content in these languages that said more people have heard amounts to a paltry few lines in a TV show, while those languages are regularly used in daily conversation by a significant number of people.
meant to demonstrate the popularity of the show and how much it permeates the culture Well, if it is meant to demonstrate how much the show permeates popular culture, it fails miserably, since very few of our readers know anything about the status of the three Insular Celtic languages in question, and all it really shows is that the show is viewed by millions of people, which is something that is already stated multiple times elsewhere in the article. If these languages were like Klingon or Sindarin and a large group of fans (and even some scholars) were actively learning/speaking them, that would be one thing that would demonstrate the show's permeation of popular culture, but the source doesn't say that and neither do we.
And Wikipedia should definitely not be making statements with serious linguistic implications just "to demonstrate the popularity of [a] show", even if it were not already doing so more effectively and less ambiguously elsewhere in the same article.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, please don't make new arguments in the edit summaries of your talk page post. My section title is not misleading, and the text as written now is unattributed. It was previously attributed to the BBC, but that was inaccurate. The BBC source says it has been reported, presumably by someone else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Actors' salaries problem wasn't resolved already? What?

@AffeL: Please explain this. I thought you had accepted my version on the Peter Dinklage article, then I thought you had again accepted my version on the List of highest paid American television stars. Do I need to ping all the users who told you that you were wrong there?

Anyway, assuming you've just changed your mind back again (as opposed to trying to game the system by "giving in to my demands" on the Dinklage FAC, with the intention of reverting back once the article passes FAC), I'll explain why your edit was wrong on its merits.

"It was reported" is WP:WEASEL, and doesn't solve the problems that (1) the best sources contradict this "report" and (2) the "report" doesn't make any sense, since the show's budget is in USD, not GBP, and even if we assume that season seven has the same budget as season six (i.e., an almost 40+% per-episode budget hike) it still would only just barely cover the 70 million GBP (89.4% of the show's budget at current rate according to xe.com) needed to pay just those five actors' salaries. Even if only, on average, four of the five appeared each episode, this would be 56 million GBP (71.6% of the budget).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agreed that if you are gonna remove it, you should change it back to the previous 1.1 million source. - AffeL (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones and philosophy (or possibly: academia)

I know of three significant Game of Thrones and philosophy products (one of which I created, the other two have nothing to do with me): one University course and two quite well known books (published by Wiley and Open Court). I had added a sub section in section 6 detailing those, but it has been removed - apologies if I was supposed to suggest the edit here first before making it. What are the views on adding such a section? Dr John Donaldson (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As you have seen, views are negative so far. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a course or books. To put it simple, your addition seems off-topic; it would perhaps fit in a trivia section, but fortunately this article does not have one. On a daily basis, many phenomena are commented upon from various points of view, including philosphical POV, but such (published) material hardly makes it to wiki articles. For example, The Lord of the Rings article does not contain reference to "...and philosophy products", even though we could find much more material on this topic than on Game of Thrones and philosophy. BTW A technical issue: external links should not be placed in the body of the text. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If the consensus is against including anything about philosophy, per se, on the GOT page, what would the view be of including a section or sub-section entitled: "Game of Thrones in academia"?

I'm aware of one GOT and philosophy course (at the University of Glasgow, a top-ranked UK institution), two GOT and philosophy publications (one with a major academic publisher, Wiley, the other with a mid-market publisher, Open Court), and I've recently learned of one GOT-influenced history course at Harvard (an institution which needs no introduction). All of which seems notable, no?

I'm also a little puzzled by the appeal to the Lord of the Rings page as a standard by which to hold the GOT page, as the LotR page includes a section entitled Impact on popular culture which lists a wide range of products that are - in the very broad sense you appear to be using the term - being "promoted": tv shows, board games, pop music, etc.

Hence, I'm left wondering why it's ok to mention and link to other tv shows, board games, pop music, and so on, but not academic courses or books. Am I missing something? Dr John Donaldson (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with adding a sentence under cultural influence that courses on the show being offered in universities. Books on TV shows however are par for the course for most TV shows and are generally not notable enough to warrant inclusions. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Dr John Donaldson, : 1) There is no consensus "against including anything about philosophy", as you claim. Calling it "Game of Thrones in academia" and adding a "GOT-influenced history course" will not help. So, no.
2) The comparison to LOTR was made on the grounds that a) it is a well known fantasy b) LOTR and JRRT have been discussed in academia with regard to, among others, philosphy for much longer than GOT. (BTW, there is a book called The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy, and many more like that.) c) Still there is nothing aboout it in the article.
3) Yes, you are missing the fact that you additions are unencyclopedic. Would you like the article Hamlet mention - in the main body of the article - courses and books that deal with philosophy, history etc in Hamlet? And the same for all books, perhaps all works of art that have been studied? That is nonsense. BTW "Impact on popular culture" means a work of art (in broad sense - including games) is influenced by another work of art, and not that a work of art is the focus of academic debate, papers, etc. I hope, for the sake of the academia, that you see the difference.
Trying to be constructive here: if there is information in the books you mention which would improve the article, you can easily add such info, and use the book as a source-reference. The mere fact that such books exist is trivial, as Hzh noted above. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses both. Let's focus on where there appears to be some agreement: that it is noteworthy, from a cultural influence perspective, that GOT university courses are being offered. Are there any remaining objections to adding a sentence along the lines suggested by Hzh? Dr John Donaldson (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, your philosophy course seems to be a 6-hour summer "event" (short course) for 30 pounds, based on the secondary sources (the link to the primary source is not working but I recall there was even less info about the course than in the secondary sources - newspapers). This does not look notable to me. And while it technically is a course "on the show being offered in universities" , I think such wording would be misleading - it is by no means a typical university course as the readers might expect (= one or two terms, no extra fee, not in summer). Moreover, you teach the course, and it seems to me you created an account and made your edit just to promote it, as I said earlier. And wiki is not a place for that. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It depends on how he writes it. There are other well-reported courses on GoT in reliable sources - for example - Harvard, University of British Columbia, UC Berkeley, and others, either as part of an existing course, or as separate short courses. I don't see why such information cannot be added. Hzh (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The initial edit by DrDonaldson was inappropriate because it contained several external links in the body text directly to the courses, which comes off as advertising/promoting, especially since the editor revealed they are one of the creators of these courses (WP:COI). However, I agree with what Hzh said, if the content can be backed up by reliable third-party sources (WP:RS), then it can be added. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I should say to DrDonaldson that there is nothing inherently wrong writing about the philosophy or academic studies of any particular TV shows (or indeed on any particular subject) if they can be supported by reliable sources. The question is whether they are significant enough to warrant inclusion rather than it being just a passing fad (a passing fad nevertheless can be notable enough to be included, however a sentence would be good enough). If any subject becomes firmly established as a study in academia, then it may be entirely appropriate to add something more, even a separate article (there is, for example, an article on Tolkien research although it is not a good one). If you want to write something on its philosophy, perhaps Themes in A Song of Ice and Fire would be an appropriate place to add that if what you want to write fits its content. If the philosophy of Game of Thrones is something that is discussed often (in the way that, for example, some people might discuss the chemistry in Breaking Bad), then you may add something to the main article, but so far I don't think that is a significant part of the conversation about the show in the way that medieval history is discussed as inspiration for the show. Hzh (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Historical antecedents

Recently, Sb101FV (talk), added a number of "historical antecedents" to the section Inspirations and derivations without adding new sources to back up his claim. A year ago, the paragraph read: "Other historical antecedents of series elements include Hadrian's Wall (which becomes Martin's Wall), the legend of Atlantis (ancient Valyria), Byzantine Greek fire ("wildfire"), Icelandic sagas of the Viking Age (the Ironborn), the Mongol hordes (the Dothraki), the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453) and the Italian Renaissance (c. 1400–1500)." and all of it was sourced using 1 source.

In February 2017, Sb101FV (talk) added the Colossus of Rhodes, Damascus Steel, Ancient Egypt, the Crusades, and in July, 2017 Barbary Coast, the lighthouse and library of Alexandria, Constantinople (Quarth), the Medieval Inquisition without providing a source. (Note that the "antecedent" of Faith Militant changed silently from the Crusades to Medieval Inquisition.)

When I challenged the edits, he added 6 sources (and more content: leprosy (greyscale) and the destruction of Pompeii; the Roman Empire (the Valyrian Freehold), the Free Cities of Essos like Braavos resembling the Italian city-states such as Venice, and Machiavellianism as the model for Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish). Let's check them:

  • 1) In the source for Faith Militant, Martin himself comments on his inspiration: "The Sparrows are my version of the medieval Catholic Church", "periods of religious revival or reform—the greatest of them being the Protestant Reformation, which led to the splitting of the church—where there were two or three rival popes each denouncing the other as legitimate. That’s what you’re seeing here in Westeros.", "a militant and aggressive Protestant Reformation, if you will, that’s determined to resurrect a faith that was destroyed centuries ago by the Targaryens." So no Crusades and no Inqusition, as User:Sb101FV would have us believe.
  • 2) The source for leprosy (greyscale) is probably the best one but it still says greyscale is similar to other diseases as well. So should we include them, too? Is it notable when we do not know if Martin was inspired this way? (The author of the article lists several diseases "with similar symptoms": harlequin-type ichthyosis, scleroderma, fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. And while he acknowledes "[Martin] never revealed if greyscale was based on a disease that afflicts real humans.", he surmises that "greyscale’s closest real comparison is probably leprosy." Two dermatologists comment on leprosy, comparing it (and other skin diseases) to greyscale; and the headline uses the pulral "diseases".)
  • 3) Another source is the book Game of Thrones versus History: Written in Blood, which would be an insteresting source but no page references are included, only a link to a vendor (which is also something Wikipedia does not prefer); so I cannot use it to check the info.
  • 4) The infographics compares Constantinople and Quarth but it lists only "main presumptions", and the source for this comparison is http://awoiaf.westeros.org. So, not a proper ecyclopedic source.
  • 5) Another source is a blog and says: "some of the items listed are confirmed by George R.R. Martin, others are simply my own observations." So, again, we cannot consider it as a proper source. (It also says Jon Snow = Jesus.)
  • 6) The last source parallels Valyria / Pompeii. The article warns that "some of these have been hinted at by Martin himself, others are just parallels we've noticed as outside observers". But why not include Melisandre / Rasputin and Olly / Brutus then? And why not for example, the Minoan eruption instead of Pompeii?

So the sources do not help the article to be more encyclopedic. All of this is normally left for fan pages. There are so many artciles about GOT and many are just rubbish to attract readers. We cannot draw from them. Critical thinking is critical. (Btw many of the content is still unsourced). I suggest to include only inspiration/parallels mentioned by Martin. Let me know what you think, and how to improve this section. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the restoration of what I originally wrote. The additions do seem to be OR.  Sandstein  12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Now, hang on, that wasn't OR - I wasn't trying to insert my own justifications for parallels. I made a serious and sincere attempt to indicate to people significant history elements that were used for inspiration for those interested in exploring those aspects. I strongly disagree that we need a confirmation from Martin if we have a reliable source pointing out a clear parallel, as I would put forth that such aspects are notable and accurate to those interested in the background for the series. I think we should reasonably expand upon what's there as it would make for more informative and still accurate content for readers, which is appropriately encyclopedic.
For example, no one is seriously suggesting that the *most prominent* antecedents of the Titan of Braavos or Valyrian Steel aren't the Colossus of Rhodes or Damascus Steel (these being the most explicit but certainly extending to several other examples listed), even if we only had other sources instead of Martin. I will admit in some cases I tried to use sources that covered multiple instances rather than perhaps more reliable sources available that spoke to fewer cases in an (perhaps inadvisable) attempt to avoid a extended list of citations. However, I still think it is more reasonable and better for the page to help include such things, even if you'd like to assist with more rigorous sourcing than to deprive readers by excluding notable, relevant, and verifiable content. That's a better way to improve the article than an overly narrow inclusion criteria.
The alternative to confirmation by Martin that I was trying to operate off was 'significant' (strong parallel to prominent historically antecedent as noted by a reliable source), trying to avoid spoiler-style or more ambiguous or less relevant ones. Obviously, that leaves open to debate specific additions for various reasons, but broader (within reason) does seem better overall as per the two examples I cited (and others). Sb101FV (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"British-American" in lede

I didn't realize that this edit would be controversial (nor that the edit preceding mine attempted the same thing!), but it seems pretty clear cut that Game of Thrones is classed as both a British and American production. Seasons 4, 5 and 6 are classed by the BFI as British, and so benefit from UK funding. In fact, the production company initiated this process, and therefore sees the production as British themselves. The critera are set out as such:

Qualifying your film as British under the cultural test for film is the gateway to accessing the UK film tax relief and is one of the criteria to apply to the BFI Film Fund.

To apply for the cultural test, there must be one film production company (FPC) that is registered with Companies House and within the UK corporation tax net. The FPC must be set up before principal photography begins and have responsibility for all aspects of the filmmaking process from pre-production through to delivery.

The cultural test is a points-based test where, under the revised guidelines, the project will need to achieve 18 of a possible 35 points to pass. It comprises of four sections:

Cultural content (up to 18 points). Cultural contribution (up to 4 points). Cultural hubs (up to 5 points). Cultural practitioners (up to 8 points).

— BFI, http://www.bfi.org.uk/supporting-uk-film/british-certification-tax-relief/cultural-test-film

For the official listing see: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/films-certified-british-through-film-cultural-test-2017-05.xls

This was cited in my edit. It's unfortunate to see it reverted without any discussion. - blake- 14:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The show is by HBO, making it an American show. - AffeL (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if that quite addresses the points above - blake- 15:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It didn't, and simply saying saying "HBO, so nyah" isn't really addressing the issue. HBO might be the parent, but the production company, if registered in the UK, mkaes it a UK production. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The BFI (British Film Institute) is a film preservation society and charitable organization in the UK, I'm not sure they have any (reliable) authority to claim something as "British" for our purposes. Furthermore, all that the above links demonstrate is that the BFI appropriated Game of Thrones based on some perceived level of "British culturalness" not on any objective production or legal factors. Did anybody actually look at the list linked? It also claims that, among other ludicrous examples, Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Lucasfilm, J. J. Abrams & Disney) is "culturally British"! Game of Thrones is written by Americans, based on source material written by an American, produced by Americans, the showrunners are Americans, distributed by an American company (Warner Bros. Television), and original broadcasts are on an American network (HBO). Frankly, I don't see how anybody can objectively argue that it is anything other than an American television series.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 19:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I would consider the BFI an authoritative source in that regard. Although assigning countries to international production is always, the series seem clearly American to despite it European themes, actors and production locations. It is a a show of an American cable channel run by American producers, which makes it American show.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't revert it because I found it controversial, I've just found that similar edits in the past without discussions have become controversial (e.g. Talk:The Crown (TV series) § British or American-British?. (I only reverted the previous edit because it was unsourced.) If the consensus is that it should be classified as British and American, then per WP:TVLEAD:

If a series' nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g. being produced solely by American production companies), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or unclear (e.g., produced by both American and British productions companies, as with Sherlock), omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later in the lead section.

So the lead would start of with "Game of Thrones is a fantasy drama television series ...". Also, The show is by HBO, making it an American show. is the most ignorant thing I've read, by someone who has no idea how television series works. I've no opinion on it either way, just putting my two cents in. -- AlexTW 01:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@WilliamThweatt: I think there's some confusion about the role of the BFI here. To clarify, the BFI is not claiming films as British arbitrarily for perceived cultural value. The BFI (an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport) controls government funding and tax relief, which can only be given to British film and TV. In order to gain access to these funds, the film must be British, and the producers themselves apply to certified as British by the BFI. The occurred in the case of Game of Thrones, and also Star Wars: The Force Awakens as mentioned above. The producers see themselves as British, and thus sought certification as such. These are legal tests devised by public body under financial control of the UK government, under which a film can be entitled to government funds. It seems hard to find a more objective source for legal 'Britishness'.
@AlexTheWhovian: I was unaware of that MoS guideline. It looks as though this is the best way to proceed. Cheers. - blake- 10:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't know that the producers "see themselves as British"; all this means is that they were lobbying for "tax relief". They are, after all, in a for-profit business and would likely apply to be Martians if they thought they could get another tax break. That's really all that this BFI determination signifies. Based on a subjective points system awarded for "cultural content", etc., the BFI assessment allows the producers to get a tax break in the UK. That doesn't make the production itself (the show, the actual work) British. It just means the business end can get tax relief in the UK based on the show's cultural content. Honestly though, I really don't care which way consensus breaks here, I just think the whole BFI thing is weak -- a tax relief ploy not sufficiently "weighty" (for our purposes) to call the show British when all aspects of writing, creation, distribution, etc are so clearly American. I wouldn't object if the preponderance of reliable sources refer to it as a "British-American television series", but I'm not seeing that anywhere.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@WilliamThweatt: Again, your argument regarding subjectivity essentially relies on the assumption that the BFI somehow wish for productions to obtain tax relief, or want to appropriate foreign films and to hoist the British flag above. The BFI is putting up restrictive and stringent barriers for access to its tax relief based on the the rules passed by the DCMS. Yes, of course the producers would claim to be Martians if they could receive the appropriate funding streams - but, surely, the point is here that they're not! Almost certainly the producers 'ployed', and made production decisions in order to achieve British film status - but this certainly isn't difficult to achieve given the Britishness of the production itself! Even if the Martians gave universe-leading tax breaks for certified Martian productions, I feel like GoT might be out of luck. Fundamentally, we have the British government and leading British film body legally certifying the film, under §1 of the Films Act 1985, as British based on stringent critera spanning cast makeup, crew nationality, set location, production location with core cultural questions. Even in an ideal world, I fail to see how we could get a more objective decision on the 'Britishness' of a film.
At the very least, according to the MoS cited above, the show's nationality simply needs to be seen as "not singular or unclear". I hope a consensus can be reached on that statement alone being true. - blake- 08:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

To close this, I will assume a consensus for replacing the first line of the lede with "Game of Thrones is a fantasy drama television series ...", as per @AlexTheWhovian's suggestion, unless informed otherwise. Would be particularly keen to hear if William Thweatt objects to the above. Cheers - blake- 18:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with any changes, and believe it should be left as is. It's an American production made by HBO, it just happens to shoot in various countries. This just has to do with receiving tax credits from where the series is filmed. The series has also received tax credits from Canada and Spain, that doesn't mean it's also a Canadian and Spanish TV series. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Per the post above yours: To close this, I will assume a consensus for replacing the first line of the lede. The discussion has not stalled at all; it had already concluded three weeks ago, with an outlier of a post added afterwards as an afterthought when the consensus was noted by the editor who began the discussion. If you really disagreed with it, you would have taken it further; the consensus is more than able to be implemented even if you disagree with it. Again: consensus is not unanimity. -- AlexTW 16:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see a consensus. Take what further? I commented and since then, there has been no comments or any edits by blake- to change the lede. So, there was nothing to be done. If anything, there was consensus for "no change", since nothing had been done to change the lede. Seven editors have taken part in this discussion – three agree with a change (blake-, you and Jack Sebastian) while four disagree with a change (myself, WilliamThweatt, AffeL and Kmhkmh). How is that a consensus? You preach WP:STATUSQUO all the time, yet you are not following it in this instance. The "American" part of the lede has been in the article for years, so a consensus has to reached for it to be changed. If the others that are against the change, now chime in and agree with the proposal by blake-, then that would be a consensus and I would happily agree with it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I see it very clearly. The editor was probably unaware of your trailing comment after they close the discussion. And as an experienced editor that you are, I'm very disappointed to see you attempting to make the discussion into some sort of voting poll, which is very heavily frowned upon at Wikipedia. Discussions are often held with only a few editors, so the number of editors contributing is also irrelevant. I am able to follow it, as I've taken it to the talk page instead of reverting again, an example you should have followed. There was no further disagreements in the two weeks between the last real reply to this discussion and Blake's declaration of the clear consensus, indicating that it really does exist. The Method of Style has existed for "years", and that's been modified very recently, after discussions, and even after editors have come in after the discussion and contested it (Exhibit A as an example here). Agreeance by everyone is not required; when I say that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity", it is directly quoted from the WP:CONSENSUS policy. -- AlexTW 16:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
So, just because someone says the discussion is "closed", no other opinions are able to be expressed? I was following the discussion as it was going, and chimed in when it felt necessary. Blake was clearly interested in other opinions when he said "unless informed otherwise" and was looking for a response by William Thweatt. Usually it's an uninvolved editor that closes discussions, not someone who started it. I understand consensus is not a vote, I actually meant to include that in my previous reply (sorry); I was merely using it as example that if you have 3 agree vs. 4 disagree, there clearly is not a consensus. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The editor who started the discussion noted the consensus, so it's clearly not only me determining that there is indeed a consensus. Nor was I the first editor to do so. The discussion had been extremely active, so if there was any issues to add to it, would they have not been added while the discussion was active? Consensus is still not determined by number of agreeing vs. disagreeing. -- AlexTW 17:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I did add to the discussion, and made some very strong points that weren't just my opinion; just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't make it not valid. Again, I understand consensus is not a vote, but you can't have consensus when more than half of the people involved with the discussion disagree with the change. You believing there's a consensus is not more valid than me believing there isn't one. From WP:CONSENSUS, In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. This is no different than the content dispute happening on the Westworld article right now as there's clearly a close split on keep vs. remove, yet the article is maintaining it's STATUSQUO. I am done replying though, but will gladly continue to discuss if any other editors voice their opinions. Have a good day. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Except that it is more valid, since if we're going to base this whole thing on counting editors, you're the only one stating that there isn't, while two have stated that there is. The article is only remaining in its STATUSQUO due to the page protection I requested, but that is irrelevant. If anyone disagrees that there is a consensus, I too recommend that they speak up. Sooner rather than later. -- AlexTW 17:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Consensus is note a vote, but if it goes in your favor, it does? Hmm. I'm interested in what you think consensus is, because if half the participants agree, and the other half disagree; I fail to see how that's a consensus. That's a clear "no consensus", and thus, the article remains as is. The fact you think your opinion is more valid than other editors is quite disturbing. No consensus has been reached because no compromises have been made or opinions changed. The problem here is most of the other editors who have taken part in this discussion aren't that active by looking at their edit history. I do wish some other editors reply here given the popularity of this series. Drovethrughosts (talk)

Until more evidence is presented that the nationality of the series is unclear, I have to agree that the series is an American drama and the status quo should remain. Most of the sources I've been able to find call it as such. In particular, one I came across is worth a read: Den of Geek (scroll down to the section, "The Tangled Web of International TV Tax Credits"). It describes that while pieces involved in a film's production may be attributed to different countries of origin, they do not always determine the nationality of the final product. Omitting American in the lead's opening should only happen with a clear consensus, and quite frankly, there isn't one in this discussion. It is true that we shouldn't simply count votes to determine consensus, but the number of 'yea' and 'nay' opinions do hold significant weight. There are situations where the number of votes are roughly equal, and so Wikipedia policy encourages that we also consider the "strength of argument" within each opinion. Arguments backed by policies and guidelines carry more weight than opinions that aren't. That doesn't mean we should ignore the numbers, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, "votes" help one player and their arguments, seems a bit hypocritical if it can't for everyone. Consensus does not mean compromises and opinions changing - please point me to where it say that. Thank you to GoneIn60 for contributing; I'll definitely give that link a read. However, I would note that external sites have no say in how Wikipedia runs its content, as it is neither a policy, guideline or essay for the site. Perhaps an RFC would be beneficial for this discussion if it can't go any further. -- AlexTW 03:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No one voted though. Voting is when you simply state "yes" or "no". That's not what happened here, people expressed their opinions and we discussed. However, at the end of the day, opinions have to be grouped into a relative "yay" or "nay". And from WP:CONSENSUS: This page in a nutshell: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Alex, I just want to add that I don't believe an external process should dictate how we follow internal processes. However, we should follow how the sources are classifying the film series. BFI is a big one to consider, and it is worthy of further discussion. All I'm saying is that more evidence is needed to support the claim that the HBO series is generally considered a British-American venture. There are some sources that seem to support that, but as far as I can tell at this stage, there are many more that don't. What the BFI source implies, in my opinion, isn't enough to stand on its own. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing wrong an an external process, especially when there is (apparently) no consensus. Especially when the MoS states If the nationality is not singular or unclear (e.g., produced by both American and British productions companies, as with Sherlock), omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later in the lead section. (Bold mine.) Clearly unclear here. Shall we start an RFC? -- AlexTW 14:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
"Clearly unclear here"
I guess that's part of the point I was trying to make. It seems pretty clear among a vast majority of reliable sources that the series is American. Those that disagree or cast ambiguity appear to be in the minority at the moment. We really need to see the supposed ambiguity be reflected in the sources. Based on the searches I've performed, I'm just not seeing a whole lot. If you are, please share some examples besides the BFI source. It may help persuade others. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't Season 8 be added on the "Adaptation schedule"?

Season 8 was ordered along with Season 7 and now we know from Nikolaj Coster-Waldau that filming will begin this October. Shouldn't it be added? Disneyisatale (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

October hasn't arrived yet, so filming hasn't started, and we don't have an end date for filming or any dates for the broadcasting of Season 8, so I feel that a row would be unnecessary at this time. -- AlexTW 13:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I see. Shouldn't it be noted though? In the "Filming" part of the article? Disneyisatale (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Pending Change: Total list of starring

Could some GOT gurus take a look at this edit, currently the latest revision, and see if it needs ot be either formatted or reverted? I have a feeling that it is not proper, so I didn't accept it. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

NVM. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not semi-protect?

Looking at this article's history, it seems to consist almost entirely (well over 90%) of a combination of (a) reverts and (b) the edits they are reverting. Pending changes protection might protect this page sufficiently from vandalism being visible, but semi-protecting would keep the page history a little cleaner, and it seems like hardly any of the non-autoconfirmed edits get through anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed at WP:RPP not here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
RPP is for requesting protection. I'm not sure that's what I want to know, and I was asking here why it hasn't already been done. Do you know? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Article has been getting a lot more traffic than usual as you can see above. Probably just hasn't needed it before. I'm assuming it'll die off as interest in the series does until late next year, but you're more than welcome to WP:RPP it. — IVORK Discuss 13:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@IVORK: Yeah, you might be right. I guess the week after the season ended was probably the worst possible time to talk about this. I'll check back in in a month or so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: It says on the page (emphasis mine) If you would like to request to have a page protected, have a page's existing protection level lowered or raised, or would like to submit an edit request for a protected page. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: You quoted it, not me: "If you would like..." I am wondering why the particular level of protection that was applied to this page was selected and if that rationale is still valid, or would not have been valid over the last two months but I figured out too late, or just is not valid anymore. If you don't have an answer for me then I don't know why you are pinging me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No mention of white walkers in second paragraph.

In the second opening paragraph it states 'The third story arc centers on the longstanding brotherhood charged with defending the realm against the ancient threats of the fierce peoples and legendary creatures that lie far north, and an impending winter that threatens the realm.' This does not include any mention of the white walkers which are a critical aspect of the series. Since the white walkers first appear in episode 1 of the series I do not believe this is a spoiler issue. The 'fierce peoples and legendary creatures' don't appear until season 2, yet they are still mentioned. I personally suggest the following amendment: 'The third story arc centers on the longstanding brotherhood charged with defending the realm against the ancient threats of the fierce peoples and legendary creatures that lie far north, along with an impending winter and the rumored 'white walkers' that threaten the entire realm.' Lemonny3663 (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The "legendary creatures that lie far north" are the White Walkers. -- AlexTW 09:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was referring to the giants. 163.47.236.27 (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_of_Thrones/Archive_4&oldid=1142359345"