Talk:The Children (Game of Thrones)

Buddy buddy, chummy chummy

I've removed the references to characters by their first names, replacing them instead with the character's full names initially and then their surnames thereafter. This isn't a fansite, and we don't know these characters personally, so let's keep it professional, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, don't you think you're being just a bit ridiculous with this? Referring to characters by their given name isn't "buddy buddy, chummy chummy" as you've described it, and furthermore, "we don't know these characters personally" is obvious, as these are fictitious people. To my knowledge, this is now the only episode page for the series to adopt this method. I believe that with the summaries written using the characters' given names we present the information in a way that even the newest viewer can appreciate and understand. I want to stress here that I'm not looking to get into a conflict (I too enjoy butterscotch) but I think we are better off changing it back. Also, Mance is King Beyond The Wall and not King In The North, so I am going to change that one back without discussion. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I am glad you enjoy butterscotch; people should be civilized enough to have that in common, I feel. ;)

Secondly, I think we have to look at the article as a reader would, coming to it for the first time. They don't know who Jon or Cersei or Chucklebutt the Clown is (and you just know there's a clown in GoT, probably in the background, ready to pounce or something); we list them by their full names initially and by surnames afterwards, it seems less…in-universe that way. More encyclopedic. More..aloof, for want of a better word. And granted, it isn't the way the other articles are. Yet. I don't think the changes are terrible, and it strips little of the story to do so. This is where I am coming from.

And thanks for catching the King Beyond the Wall thing; I was juggling too many real world tasks at the same time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And I can definitely see your point. It is important to use the character's full name at their first mention in the summary, but where we diverge is what to call them afterward. The problem I see is that many of the characters share surnames, so the events in King's Landing will soon become muddled with the Lannisters, and with the Starks all over the map, just calling them Stark seems sure to cause some confusion. What do we do in cases of characters that think they are Cher, like Melisandre or Hodor (or Patchface [read Chucklebutt], the dimwitted clown that they unfortunately skipped over)? I think it's worth mentioning that the novels for the series use full names first and then given names in their summaries, and I don't think it's too much of a leap to say they did so to avoid confusion for the average reader. Even in cases of novels where the surnames are not shared by so many principle characters, the summaries use given names (what jumped to mind first was the Harry Potter series and The Lord of the Rings). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point. It's a compelling argument you make. Is there a way to make it less…chummy? I am reminded of a joke:

How In Tune with Reality Are you?

1. Elvis was great, but he's dead now.

2. Elvis didn't die, and was spotted in Kalamazoo last week.

3. I'm having lunch with Elvis tomorrow.

When I read the summary, I feel it is being written by…well, not quite #3-types, but definitely those who have drunk the kool-aid. There has to be a way around that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Full name on first use; common name on subsequent. Prisoner of Azkaban uses "Harry Potter" the first couple of times and "Harry" thereafter. Keep it covered for people unfamiliar with the story, but then keep it concise. Considering the way the show (and the plot section of this article) are set up, everything is pretty close together. If I'm reading "Tyrion," I don't have to scroll up to see that his full name is "Tyrion Lannister"; it's right there. One full name per character will probably be enough in this case.

As for making the plot summary sound less in-universe, it could be brought closer to the facts and eschew anything that sounds even a little archaic. Change "as he knows know other way to live" to "because he felt safer and more respected as a high-ranking slave" or by quoting his words directly. That ought to take the edge off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC participation request

There's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

The RfC concerning Westeros.org was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be addressed separately. This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Alice Hewkin

Alice Hewkin is the only guest actor whose character is not listed in the infobox. According to this IMDb page she's listed a playing "Child of the Forest". I know IMDb is not considered a reliable source per WP:UGC and WP:BLPSPS, but I'm not sure what source (or sources) is being used regarding the other guest actors. For example, the IMDb I mentioned above, lists Octavia Selena Alexandru as playing a character named "Leaf" while this article says "Child of the Forest". If there is a source that is being used to verify the roles of the other guest actors and said source does not mention Alice Hewkin, then maybe her character is not notable enough to be listed in the infobox. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Guest actors in infobox

There a few guest actors listed in the infobox who are not mentioned in the article. MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox and H:IB#What should an infobox contain? both seem to imply that the purpose of an infobox is to summarize material mentioned and cited (if necessary) within the article; In other words, an infobox is not generally for introducing new information. Therefore, if there's no real good way to mention some of these guest actors within the article itself, then maybe they should be removed from the infobox altogether.

For example, for Darren Kent, it might be possible to add his character to the "Across the Narrow Sea" section as "The next citizen in line is a grieving father who brings her ....". The character "Braavosi captain" probably could be added in a similar way to the end of the "In the Vale" section. Not sure about the other characters, but once again if they cannot be added to the article then they probably should not be in the infobox.

Finally, Kerry Ingram (as Shireen Baratheon) is listed as a guest actor but I do not remember her being in this episode. Should she be listed in the infobox at all? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)