Talk:The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 20, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
January 25, 2017	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

A Song of Ice and Fire High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A Song of Ice and FireWikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireTemplate:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireA Song of Ice and Fire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Top-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

June 19 to 25, 2016 (18th)

What is NOT said

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the word "Rhaegar" is never uttered in this episode. It's pretty clear from context that J=R+L, but let's not go beyond what the dialogue actually says. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention that same thing and do cleanup but would've taken too long and you're already halfway done with corrections. NoCitations (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for putting that on the record.— TAnthony^Talk 14:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be picky, but it's also not actually stated in the episode that it is Jon Snow. The cut to him implies it, but the actual scene doesn't SAY it. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to be picky, but the scene doesn't have to implicitly name the child as Jon; especially seeing as Dan and Dan want the child's POTENTIALLY TRUE name to be a secret. The show never named Leaf, yet all articles so far have referred to her as Leaf because of supplemental material. Likewise, HBO has already confirmed the child is Jon on their Game of Thrones Viewer Guide. It's okay to put a pin on naming Jon's father for awhile, but there's no need to dance around naming Lyanna's child as Jon Snow. http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/season-6/episode-10/people/61/jon-snow 159.63.130.2 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't. If you want to put it elsewhere in the article, that's fine, but none of the rest of the plot summary references external explanations. I'm trying to walk a fine line here, describing how the scene communicates to us that this is Jon without saying things that it does not. I've had my notation of the editing (baby's face -> Jon's face) deleted a couple of times without explanation, and I would really like to understand why. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. It's because WP:TVPLOT says that the plot section should not exceed 500 words. By my count, it's almost 900. Much like the episode didn't outright say that was Jon Snow, we don't need to do so either, especially with words at a premium in an episode where a lot happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's among the less solid reasons for deleting an item I've ever heard. A lot happened, and sometimes it takes a lot to convey it. TVPLOT is entirely appropriate for an episode of Friends (where 50 words might suffice), but let's not pretend that it's a one-size-fits-all guideline. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but TVPLOT applies to all TV, including Game of Thrones. There's no reason that it wouldn't. The plot summary as it is is almost twice as long as TVPLOT suggests, because of the complicated nature of the plot. Still, care should be taken to use as few words as possible to get across the nuts and bolts. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but TVPLOT is a style guideline. That is, it can be overridden by local consensus at will. It'll keep the article from getting to FA status (and frankly I think a GA nom is premature as the article is not sufficiently stable yet), but that's OK if it actually tells things better. One option, however is to pull that tidbit out of PLOT, and discuss in a section how J = R + L evolved, and how this is the closest thing we've ever gotten to a confirmation. I'll see if I can get around to trying that this weekend... Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had a go at it. Feel free to improve if you see a way to: [1] Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary links

I'm not sure that linking Tommen's suicide to an article about suicide by jumping is particularly informative or helpful, but perhaps others feel differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.187.12 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is overlinking and I've undone it.— TAnthony^Talk 22:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review later. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Name the reviewer in "with one critic calling it "very surprising and satisfying."
"cause the crew" either "because" or "as"
Add something to the infobox image's caption about the digital compositing of multiple ships - as you've discussed this in the article and the lead, that'll then be good for fair use purposes
Plot:Missing a full stop at the end of "celebrates the recapture of Riverrun with the Lannisters" - also I'd just merge this subsection into a single paragraph since the first paragraph is just that single line.
"aren't" to "are not" - we don't use contractions (except in quotes), although this often catches me out as well
"to take care of her son, Jon Snow." - I'd say "her son, which is revealed to be Jon Snow" since she never specifically says who the child is (although there are plenty of guesswork on the web about the original Targaryen name), but the fade from the child's face to Snow's makes it implicit.
Production: Link Rhaegar Targaryen
"upcoming series" - I'd clarify that as "upcoming television series"
Reception: WhatCulture is one word, and I wouldn't put it in italics. Needs to be fixed in the cite too
References: Cite #32 needs an access date
Cite #45: TV.com shouldn't be in italics

That's everything. Nice job! Placing it on hold for the time being. Miyagawa (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: I did it. All done AffeL (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Winds of Winter (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) 01:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Winds of Winter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Show genre

This is listed as fantasy despite being a soap opera? The night king kills Arya in the winds of winter (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your genre change again, but thank you for opening this discussion as WP:BRD indicates. To indicate that this is a soap opera, there would need to be reliable sources indicating that the show falls into said genre. While this article states that season six "has a prime-time soap sheen, bringing characters back from the dead seemingly to placate fans", it does not explicitly call it a soap opera, and to use it as a reference for such is presumably synthesis. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]