Wikipedia talk:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Fictional character articles should have their HBO representations removed from the infobox?

I've been looking at a bunch of ASOIAF articles and Middle-Earth articles recently, for largely unrelated reasons, and was struck by how much more careful the latter are not to confuse the books with their film adaptations. Aragorn, for example, includes three images of the character from three different adaptations, and all of them are relegated to the adaptations section, with the infobox bare of image.

Yes, Aragorn is explicitly described as being ugly in the book, so a photo of Viggo Mortensen would be incredibly anachronistic, and an image from either of the cartoons would be somewhat "surprising" for the larger numbers of fans of the films. But this problem is actually more aggravated with ASOIAF since virtually all of the characters are drastically aged up, such that almost none of the major characters could possibly look like their screen adaptations. The exact same "Aragorn is ugly, Viggo is not" problem actually applies to several ASOIAF characters (Tyrion, Ygritte, Brienne).

Personally I think a majority of our ASOIAF standalone character articles should be deleted, and will probably open a mass AFD once I can figure out how to avoid being filibustered by the one who wrote all the articles. But in the interim I think the HBO images should probably be removed from the lead sections, including of those articles that I don't think should be deleted (Tyrion, Danaerys, etc.).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I Do not agree with that at all, but we could add for example with the Jon Snow article "Kit Harington as Jon Snow in Game of Thrones" for the caption(so you clarify what the picture is from). The thing with LOTR is that their are multiply adaptations of the books(so you can't chose one), while for ASOIAF, their is only one. If their ever will be another ASOIAF adaptation, then you would have a case. Plus on another not the only reason their are standalone articles for these characters is because of the show. The books is not nearly as popular as the show, and Popularity = Notability. - AffeL (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: Do you understand my concern that the articles are (supposed to be?) about the books first and their various adaptations (not just the HBO show -- board games, card games, video games...) second, and presenting photos of the HBO actors as though they were accurate representations of the characters in the books is problematic? Dany's age, for instance, is only mentioned indirectly (and somewhat ambiguously) in the sentence Thirteen years before the events of the series, [...] Daenerys was born and we illustrate the lead with an image of a 26-year-old actress. Said image is non-free, and the usage rationale claims that Copyrighted character and series; by nature, no free version exists., but actually there are a bunch of images that are officially licensed by the copyright holder of the character (George R. R. Martin) and whose copyright holders grant permission to use for non-profit purposes. This for example. I'm actually not all that familiar with image copyrights, but use of non-free images with fair use rationales is ... debatable (?) when the images are not good accurate illustrations of the characters as we describe them in our article texts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way -- Popularity = Notability. has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am not talking about my forthcoming AFDs -- I'm only talking about infobox images, particularly in articles I don't plan on AFDing, and The books is not nearly as popular as the show and particularly the fact is that the show is way better than the books [...] Don't be mad that the show has turned to be far superior than the books.[1] is likely not going to make you any friends around here. By the way -- you still haven't apologized for your repeated attacks on me and claims that I "hate the show", and appear to have now renewed that; there is no other explanation for your bringing that up out of the blue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible analogues to consider, of... varying assessment quality: Harry Potter (character), Katniss Everdeen, Bella Swan, Vito Corleone, Scarlett O'Hara. Dorothy Gale shows an illustrated image, but also sports a very lengthy list of portrayers. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TenTonParasol: Meh. We should probably consider a variety of factors.

• Are our articles more about the adaptations or the source material? Or, rather, would they be the other way round if our articles weren't crap? Vito Corleone is almost nothing but plot summary, but a decent article would probably be much more focused on the film version than the relatively obscure book. If it were better-written and focused, it would probably look more like Scarlett O'Hara. Bella Swan is probably in this group as well, or should be.
• How accurate are the film portrayals of the characters to their book counterparts in terms of physical appearance? Harry Potter (character) is probably fine, while Katniss Everdeen is ... not.
• How much detail can we give based on reliable sources to contextualize the changes? GRRM has discussed in interviews how Dany was specifically aged up massively to get around child pornography regulations (an eighteen-year-old actress playing a thirteen-year-old character would not be allowed have sex on-screen in a lot of territories), so we actually could contextualize, even in the caption, how her age was altered for the show for a specific reason, and probably should. But I still think that discussion belongs in a section on the TV adaptation, not the lead or infobox.
• How well-known/widely-seen/accurate are original source material illustrations that were officially licensed (as opposed to fan art, which we probably shouldn't include)? Our article on Iron Man has as its infobox image an illustration in comic book from 2010 rather than the indisputably more popular film character. I can't imagine there are many illustrated editions of The Godfather (novel) or even Gone with the Wind (novel), but GRRM has explicitly stated that he loves having illustrations on/in his books and we don't have a shortage of non-free but officially-licensed images that more accurately illustrate the book characters than the HBO show does.[2] (By the way: I know the cover of the Okabe translation -- sorry, don't have the artist's name on hand -- makes Tyrion look bald. The point is that it doesn't directly portray him as being bald, whereas the HBO show portrays him as a "sexy beast" -- Rolling Stones description of Dinklage -- with the wrong colour eyes and a full nose.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that the books are the source of the show. To be sure, the first three seasons followed reasonably closely, but things have become increasingly more divergent, and the sixth season is working off of ideas not yet published. The analogy with LotR also breaks down in the numbers of adaptations: LotR has had several, with the live action most popular/famous. ASoIaF is unlikely to ever have another. Likewise, LotR had been out and done for decades (Christopher Tolkein? Who's that?) before the adaptations, while ASoIaF is ongoing and developing the characters simultaneously.

All that to say, I believe each character article should cover BOTH the character from the books AND the character from the series. Like it or hate it, the significant, independent, RS coverage for each character is going to be about the HBO series characters rather than the book character, 90+% of the time. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I'm not sure I agree with the premise that the books are the source of the show. To be sure, the first three seasons followed reasonably closely, but things have become increasingly more divergent, and the sixth season is working off of ideas not yet published. YES!! Thank you! Be prepared to get accused of being "non-NPOV" for making the claim that the later seasons aren't true adaptations, though.

On a more serious note, your concerns about the LOTR analogy are noted, but the fact that the character's appearance was changed, for the explicit purpose of sex appeal, is easily verifiable for both adaptations, and is still a pretty apt comparison regardless of the relative ages of the source material.

Like it or hate it, the significant, independent, RS coverage for each character is going to be about the HBO series characters rather than the book character, 90+% of the time. For the record, I am on the "hate it" side, but I would debate your "significant, independent, RS coverage" argument. There has been a lot of serious literary analysis of the books, some even by professional scholars, and that is the kind of stuff we should be including in these articles. If the character is a minor character in the books whose importance was blown up in the adaptation, and as a result they got disproportionate coverage in pop-culture/entertainment media that isn't really about the characters so much as the actors anyway, and we can't actually write anything encyclopedic ... well, those are the ones I'm going to be AFDing once I can figure out a good dividing line between the two, and once I can figure out how to avoid having AffeL filibuster them and try to make them about me and how terrible a person I am for hating the super-popular and much better show.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure Iron Man is a good analogue, seeing as he has been established as a character in a visual medium since the 1963 and is known very plainly as a comic book character, the recent popular film portrayal even acknowledging this, and he is recognized as a comic book character. I think it's different between "they look different from described" and the purpose of an infobox. An image is used for visual identification of a character, and it's a little difficult to visually identify a character who appears in prose form and doesn't have a very widely recognized illustration. It's different from say Sherlock Holmes. For characters from A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones, the most widely recognized visual identification is that of the HBO adaptation. Differences between physical description in the books and the casting in the series, as indeed something widely remarked upon, can be detailed in perhaps a casting section or something. It isn't to say that such information cannot be included. I just don't see how "they look vastly different as described" stops the HBO image from being the widely recognized image, even when one takes into account the illustrated editions and covers. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@TopTenParasol: Okay. We can agree to disagree on that point. I think that if what you were saying were widely accepted theninfoboxes with no image would be anathema. Since the AFDs for minor characters about whom nothing encyclopedic can be written are the priority, if I ever bring up the images for major characters again it will be after that at the earliest. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whose fault it was, there is general agreement that this sideshow is a distraction from the main discussion

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) @AffeL: Another by the way -- could you provide a source that says the show is more popular than the books? I mean, you obviously can't demonstrate objectively that either version is more "popular" (as in "liked or admired by many people" -- I for instance have spent a lot more money on the show than on the books, but still much prefer the books), but comparing viewership statistics to book sales, it looks like the books have are considerably more widely read. As of the debut of season five of the show[3] the books had sold on average around 12 million copies each, while at the same time[4] our article gave the average viewership for each season as being between 2.5 and 7 million, and the single highest-rated episode had been seen by 7.2 million. Yes, the viewership stats don't include piracy, and probably not worldwide figures, and a lot more people are probably lazy and bought a book that they never read than turned on the TV and left it running while they went outside and didn't watch the episode, but still ... 5 million ... I wouldn't be asking you for evidence of this if it didn't really, really feel like you were just bringing this up because you still think I "hate the show" and are just trying to troll me. If you are, then please stop trying to troll me. If you are not, then please don't make off-topic claims you can't even back up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC) This is such an of topic thing and has nothing to with this. But the single highest rated episode of the series has 9 million views(season 6 finale)(USA)[[5]], if you add dvr and so forth then it has like 25-30 million(Also USA)[[6]]. And this is just in the States. If you add piracy then thats another like 50 million. All of the five books so far have only been sold 60 million worldwide since the 90's. Also if you have used social media(twitter, facebook and so on) or youtube. Then you know that posts and videos about the shows gets like 100 times more attention. Also the media almost never talk about the books, but can't seem to stop talking about the show. So as you can see the show has more watcher in the US, then the books have readers in the entire world. - AffeL (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC) But I don't want to talk about this, as it has nothing to do with this discussion. The character articles are about the show and the books, not one more than the other. I don't hate the books, so stop claming I do. I have read the first three and some of the fourth book. ASOIAF is my favorite book series, I just prefer the show more. That's my opinion. Also I have apologized, and I have never claimed you "hate the show" ever since. - AffeL (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC) AffeL, if you make one more off-topic remark to which I respond by asking you to explain, and then complain that I am the one engaging in "of topic" discussion, I will ask User:Yunshui to block you. This is like the third time you've done this in as many days. You have claimed a bunch of times that I hate the show, and continue to make off-topic remarks about how awesome the show is and how much better it is than the books, even when that is not what the rest of us are talking about -- this could only possibly make sense if you were trying to troll me as revenge for my supposedly hating the show. Conversely, I never "clamed" that you hated the books -- you did. And why on earth would this require discussion/consensus on the WikiProject talk page??? Could you please stop reverting all my edits, start engaging in serious talk page discussion, start making sense? Please? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC) You are the one who brought this up. Stay to the point or else I wont reply to your off-topic remarks. Stop making bold controversial edits and start being serious in this discussion by talking about the comment you made. - AffeL (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Brought what up? You are the one making off-topic remarks about how popular the show is, and I simply responded by saying that you are wrong. This isn't like The Godfather or Gone with the Wind where a significant proportion of our readership who have heard of the films and maybe even seen them probably have no idea they are based on books. This discussion is supposed to be about use of screencaps and promotional images from the HBO to illustrate articles on A Song of Ice and Fire characters, particularly in cases where the show characters do not resemble the descriptions in the books. You are the one who said Plus on another not the only reason their are standalone articles for these characters is because of the show (which isn't true if one looks at the histories of the Tyrion or Dany articles, and I am not talking about the articles on minor characters, which I think should be merged/redirected anyway) The books is not nearly as popular as the show, and Popularity = Notability. so my asking you for a source for this claim is no more off-topic than your making the claim out of the blue to begin with. And no, I will not stop making "controversial" edits. As long as you continue your current behaviour, every edit I make in this topic area will be "controversial" because you don't like me and oppose/revert virtually every edit I make. The only way I could stop making "controversial" edits would be to accept a self-imposed TBAN. I have actually done this from time to time when I got annoyed trying to make edits to articles in this or that "controversial" topic area, but I don't intend on doing so just because you tell me to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC) I'll come back to this discussion when you stop talking about something so off-topic. - AffeL (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

GoT character awards sections

Discussion moved from User talk:TAnthony— TAnthony^Talk 16:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw you reverted a couple of my edits from earlier today. I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the tables. My opinion is that these are acting awards, and not character awards, so a comprehensive list of all of the awards and nominations belongs more with the actor's article and not the character's article. To double-check my logic, I read the articles for numerous notable fictional characters from TV and film where the actors won awards for their portrayal, and found no instances where these sorts of lists were included. (Granted, there's no way for me to check all possible examples, so if you can find any, please let me know.) If you think that a wider discussion is needed, then I'd be more than happy to participate in an RFC. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles I checked for examples of these tables: Vito Corleone, Ross Gellar, Batman, Harry Potter (character), Forrest Gump (character), Andy Sipowicz, etc...

Finally, including ensemble acting awards in these lists is even more tangential to the character themselves. I'll leave it off here, and wait for your feedback. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Caknuck: Thanks for the message. I definitely see your point, and certainly ensemble awards may be tangential. My issue with your other examples is that none of these articles are FA status; the character FAs Pauline Fowler, Todd Manning, and Eve Russell cite awards and nominations in the prose. Just as critical commentary about the performance can be relevant to the reception of a character, awards and accolades speak to the character's notability, etc. Perhaps it's a matter of streamlining to the more notable and relevant awards, and working into the prose as part of the real-world chronology rather than a list.— TAnthony^Talk 20:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: working into the prose as part of the real-world chronology rather than a list That was exactly my point! My concern wasn't in the discussion of the awards in the prose, but in dropping a large tabled list with little or no context.

Where there was text explaining the awards, like in Jon Snow (character), I left it in place and removed only the table. In cases like Arya Stark, there was a tabled list, with no accompanying text and no mention that it was Maisie Williams who was nominated for/won the awards. Cheers, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that most of the "Awards" sections in question were added after I tagged some of the more obscure character articles (Khal Drogo, Olenna Tyrell), and (in a mistake for which I'm still kicking myself) one of the less obscure characters, as potentially not meeting GNG. The assumption was apparently that the actor having received an award individually, been nominated for an award individually, or even been nominated for an award as part of the ensemble, demonstrates notability of the character. This seemed to me and one or two others like an inappropriate extension of WP:NACTOR to the characters the actors have played. Whether the awards discussions stay or not, it should be borne in mind that some/a lot/most of the articles might soon be merged back into the lists they originally redirected to. Ensemble awards would therefore be redundant in a lot of cases, as they might appear a dozen or more times on the same page. I'm just trying to figure out which articles I personally think should be merged and which ones I think the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians would agree should be merged before opening the mass AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:Thanks for the context. Let me know if/when these merge and/or AfD discussions take place. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware that a discussion was taking place here, and had started to revert Caknuck's edits. If he's indeed right and the tables have to be removed then what are we waiting for? As you may know similar sections can already be found in these articles as well: Ramsay Bolton, Gilly, Melisandre, Missandei, Jon Snow and Brienne of Tarth. Does this discussion mean that no such sections should exist at all or are they allowed but only in prose? Caknuck has already removed the tables from Daenerys Targaryen, Sansa Stark, Arya Stark, Petyr Baelish, etc. Please make it clear that what needs to be done with those articles as well. Keivan.f^Talk 04:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I'm glad that you tagged those articles, and I would have really appreciated it if you could check the rest of those articles to see whether they meet the notability guidelines or not. Recently I was thinking about nominating them for deletion as some of them only include plot summaries but merging them could be a better idea as you said. Please inform me of such discussions whenever you decide to open an AFD/merge. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 04:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: We should bear in mind that most or all of those that probably don't meet GNG were originally forked out of List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters, so outright deletion is not really the best option anyway. If there is anything worth merging, that would take place after the pages were redirected anyway. I'll be sure to notify anyone who wants to be if I'm the one who opens the AFD, anyway. That said, if anyone with a better hand on modern American pop culture than I wants to be bold and go straight at it: fire ahead, but don't forget to notify me as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Individual character articles vs. The List

@Keivan.f: I'm persuaded by Caknuck's argument regarding the tables, but I do think some of the awards info/citations should remain/be restored in the appropriate prose section, as it somewhat speaks to the character's reception and notability. I restored some info to Tyrion Lannister in an abbreviated way, also eliminating ensemble awards/noms and those of dubious notability (like the Gold Derby). As far as the character articles themselves go, I think we can agree that most of these characters are notable enough for their own articles, and the sources are out there. AffeL can't do all the improvements himself, we should be focusing on expanding these articles properly rather than redirecting them back to the character list every year.— TAnthony^Talk 16:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Before anyone goes nominating anything GoT related for deletion, I would encourage you to drop by my talk page and ask specific questions and allow me to see what I can find--Not that you can't Google yourself, but if you're either unwilling to or come up with nothing, let me have a go at it. Khal Drogo, for instance, let's see... Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Shows [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], for starters... Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Okay, so...

• The first is a clearly tongue-in-cheek piece about how a different character played by the same actor is supposedly similar: if we accepted such sources for GNG purposes then virtually every fictional character would merit their own article, but ironically enough Miami Man doesn't currently exist even as a redirect.
• The second is nothing but in-universe plot information and fan speculation, and in fact (assuming it's reliable and not WP:INDISCRIMINATE) actually gels with my earlier idea of merging into the Daenerys article.
• The third also relates more to Dany -- Khal Drogo isn't a "Wom[a]n of Ice and Fire".
• The fourth is nothing but plot summary, and I get the impression you didn't even read it before linking it, or else you would have known that.
• Ditto.
• The sixth appears to be a broken link. Is it showing up (did it show up) for you?

The above sources are without exception completely useless for establishing the notability of Khal Drogo, and if you post similar long lists of links to nothing of much interest in the forthcoming mass-AFD and waste more of my time, I will have to seriously question whether it's worth wasting my time on such things. I would probably just go through the first half-dozen or so, link back to this, and ask the closer to ignore your remarks as you seem not to have understood the first bullet-point in WP:GNG. I wasted a lot of time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuell Benta dealing with a similar long list of sources that do nothing (provided by an admin who felt apparently no remorse causing me to waste my time going through sources I got the impression he had not read before linking), and I'm not interested in doing the same ten times over on a mass AFD for ASOIAF character articles.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but a plot summary is of necessity transformative: the source making the summary has to decide what to include or highlight. Likewise, a source doesn't have to be primarily about the topic in order to count for notability of the topic: it just has to address the topic in a non-trivial way. And yes, the first piece does deal with an actor holding two roles, and if we accepted every such source there would be hundreds of fictional character articles, perhaps even thousands, that would be notable thereby. Oh, wait, it does count and there are. If a notable actor played two different parts and an RS comments on both of them, it's a pretty good bet that both are notable in the first place. I'll look at the sixth one, but really, no matter what it says, you've made it clear that it's not going to be enough. Notability does not require 2-3 full-length character studies published in the academic press solely about the fictional element in question. However, if in the process of reviewing a fictional character you looked at at least this much, detailed what you had found in an AfD nomination and explained why you didn't think it counted, I could oppose your nomination but not fault you for a BEFORE issue. Certain other editors are not in that habit at all. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but a plot summary is of necessity transformative: the source making the summary has to decide what to include or highlight. Likewise, a source doesn't have to be primarily about the topic in order to count for notability of the topic: it just has to address the topic in a non-trivial way. I'm sorry, but heck no. The existence of secondary reliable sources that verify elements of a plot summary does not justify our having an article that consists of nothing but said plot summary. I have indicated my distaste for PRIMARY-sourced plot summaries elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I accept that a SECONDARY-sourced plot summary is enough to build an article around. I am confident virtually all experienced editors would agree with me on this point. The fact that none of Drmies's 920 talk-page stalkers showed up to disagree (while three or four agreed) supports this.

Notability does not require 2-3 full-length character studies published in the academic press solely about the fictional element in question. But you haven't been able to find one character study of more than a few hundred words (not sure what "full-length" means -- personally I would prefer if Wikipedia didn't include standalone articles on fictional characters on whom books haven't been written). There isn't anything about the character in those sources beyond basic plot information related to his interactions with Daenerys Targaryen. Nothing about his real-world inspiration, personality, history, motivations, cultural impact... It's obvious that the Dothraki are modeled on the Turko-Mongolic peoples of central and northern Asia, and I'm sure GRRM (a notorious history buff) was thinking of one or more real-world people when writing Drogo, but where are the sources discussing any of this information? If we could include self-published sources from only quasi-notable YouTubers (who are respected members of the ASOIAF fan community, have been profiled in a magazine, make practically a living wage writing about the books, and published an interview with the author) that would be one thing, but I suspect that's one area where the community would disagree with me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:PSTS notes secondary sources are characterized by "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis", which plot summaries most certainly are. Standalone articles vs. huge, sprawling lists of stuff is a big red herring in Wikipedia, one we spend far too much time on... but no matter how many people don't disagree with your interpretation strongly enough to show up and join the debate, it's clear that Drogo meets V and doesn't meet NOT, and so should be covered in Wikipedia somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:PSTS notes secondary sources are characterized by "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis", which plot summaries most certainly are. You are missing the point. I'm not saying that we shouldn't use secondary sources when we write plot summaries -- we certainly should, and our allowing PRIMARY-sourced plot summaries is out of line with our NOR policy. The problem is that when secondary sources include nothing qbout the topic except plot summary, they are no better for GNG than primary sources would be. Standalone articles vs. huge, sprawling lists of stuff is a big red herring in Wikipedia, one we spend far too much time on... It's a WEIGHT problem. Right now English Wikipedia contains standalone articles on a random selection of ASOIAF that User:AffeL happens to like. Characters whom I like no more or less deserve standalone articles than characters you or AffeL like (or even Weiss and Benioff like). We should have standalone articles on topics where more can be written than a bare plot summary, and characters about whom all we can say is plot summary should be confined to lists. but no matter how many people don't disagree with your interpretation strongly enough to show up and join the debate What I outlined immediately abofe is a widely accepted standard on English Wikipedia, and applies to virtually every other fictional franchise (famously Pokémon). it's clear that Drogo meets V and doesn't meet NOT Well, maybe if NOT stood for NOTability. V is not a criterion for coverage in a standalone article; it is the absolute bare minimum for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. and so should be covered in Wikipedia somewhere. Again, you are missing the point. I think the article (and others like it) should be merged back into the list where it originated. Please refrain from making strawman arguments against someone who might hypothetically have been arguing that the page should be deleted and salted, and that the list to which it originally redirected similarly be deleted, as I never said anything of the sort. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the sixth item, it appears to have left Google Scholar since I linked to it, and I agree that it now appears to be a dead link. I did not make note of anything beyond the URL itself, but there are a handful of other similar things on the first two pages of the Google scholar search results. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look a bit later. If the five that I was able to see were among the best you found, I doubt there's anything on GScholar that would be any better for GNG purposes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way -- I don't believe you read the source, picked it out from the others as being worth linking to demonstrate that the topic meets GNG, and then completely forgot everything about it the space of 23 hours. More likely, it was the same as the fourth and fifth in terms of content, and either (a) it took you 30 seconds to read through it and it made little enough of an impression on you that you don't remember, or (b) you don't want to admit that you do remember it being nothing but a brief plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said I looked at it for more than 30 seconds, and no, I don't keep detailed notes when I do these sorts of reviews, so your a) would appear to apply... and I didn't mean to give the impression otherwise. Jclemens (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If you didn't even look at it for 30 seconds, how can you claim it provides significant coverage of the topic, enough to merit a standalone article? Again, it seems like you are arguing against a strawman here -- I never said List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters and all its redirects should be deleted. You should not be arguing that the topic should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia -- this is supposed to be a discussion of standalone articles, and you are wasting my time if you do otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Because 30 seconds is all it takes to say "RS? Check. More than a bare mention? Check." If I were actually adding sources to the articles, I'd spend a lot more time and be more discriminating. This sort of rapid triage has evolved to deal with AfDs where no one has bothered to BEFORE in any meaningful way. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"More than a bare mention" is not what GNG says. We need "significant coverage", defined as meaning it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. If all a source does is regurgitate basic plot information, and we are still left unable to write anything about inspiration, themes, relationship to other works, influence, etc. without engaging in original research, then the source is no good for proving notability. It's better (in my opinion, but apparently not that of some others) to write plot summaries based on secondary sources, but secondary sources that only provide plot information are useless for GNG purposes because we still can't build articles out of them. But I'm wasting my time at this point. I will post a notification on this page when I get around to opening the AFD, but I will not drop by your talk page before doing so. You know the standalone character articles that consist of virtually nothing but plot information will be posted to AFD already; you can start searching for sources (and even perhaps improving the artixles!) in the mean time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand my terseness to mean that I don't fully comprehend what notability does and does not require. I'm saddened that you can quote the GNG, and then turn around and substitute your own personal notability guideline: plot summary is transformative, hence secondary, hence counts towards notability, while a simple "Jason Momoa played Khal Drogo" is indeed a bare mention and does not. If you intend to nominate standalone characters for deletion, searching for sources is your job, no one else's. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary being transformative or not, if a source only contains plot summary, then it's not reliable for anything except plot summary, and Wikipedia articles need to contain more than plot summary. You have it the wrong way round; if I tagged an article as potentially not meeting GNG, and the article's creator responded by coatracking a bunch of peripherally related nonsense onto the article, it can be fairly assumed that said creator searched but could not find sources. You have now searched as well and could not find sources. Posting the article to AFD does not require any more preliminary source-searching on my part once I've seen all this evidence that sources are in short supply. And if I know that such-and-such fictional character is extremely minor even within the work in question, I can assume such sources are in short supply there as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I'm not sure how serious you are with your seemingly extreme threshold for notability, considering that you would prefer if Wikipedia didn't include standalone articles on fictional characters on whom books haven't been written. But it does include such articles, and I don't think that any the character FAs I cited above have extensive scholarly works written about their subjects. Do any? Drogo is probably on the low end of the notability scale because he only appeared in one book/one season, but the popularity of the TV series has spawned enough journalism to, in my opinion, arguably assure that most primary characters in the series meet GNG.— TAnthony^Talk 15:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read all my comments carefully, including the ones on Drmies's talk page to which I linked above. I expressed that as a personal preference, and it was clear that I did not intend for others to agree with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: You said, and I quote, that "As far as the character articles themselves go, I think we can agree that most of these characters are notable enough for their own articles, and the sources are out there". Would you please determine which characters are in fact worthy enough to have their own separate articles? What I believe is that POV characters are of top importance, meanwhile there's no standalone article for nearly one-third of them (probably because they don't appear or have a significant role in the TV series), and yet we have a full article dedicated to Gilly who doesn't even play a major role in comparison to the others. I think a list has to be made to make it clear that which articles need to be kept, which ones need to be deleted, and which characters from both the novels and TV series are prominent enough to have standalone articles in the future. Right now I want to find out which articles Hijiri 88 intends to nominate for deletion as he made a solid argument against keeping Khal Drogo as an article. Keivan.f^Talk 09:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: I've been having headaches for most of this week, and ... well, I'm kinda scared of something happening the minute I list off the specific articles I'm thinking of, which I don't want to specify per WP:BEANS, but I think a fairly good guide would be "The articles AffeL created in 2016". Most of the ones that definitely deserve to be kept are older than that and/or were not created by AffeL (who hasn't edited for a week, for what it's worth). I'm not sure if I agree with what (I think?) you are saying about POV characters. There are a lot of POV characters in the books (Cressen, Areo, Varamyr...) who probably shouldn't have articles. That said, Ellaria Sand having an article while Arianne Martell is confined to a list is pretty ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way -- it's unrelated to the forthcoming AFDs, but I think the TV show also hurts the articles that probably should exist. Our illustration of the Dany article is too old, and our illustration of the Cersei article has her wearing a crown and sitting the Iron Throne (something that will never happen in the books). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Well, I agree with you. First of all what I'm trying to say isn't that all POV characters are important enough to have their own articles, as you said only the prominent ones should, and obviously Arianne is one of the major characters in the books although she doesn't appear in the TV series. We almost have standalone articles for the majority of them but I still think that characters like Arianne, Asha, Victarion and Aeron deserve to have their own articles since their roles will grow even bolder in the upcoming book based on the chapters that have been released. Despite the POV characters, some of the supporting characters who play a crucial role in the story, either in the books or the TV series, can absolutely have standalone articles. An example would be Ramsay who has found a place among the memorable villains of all time.

And about the illustrations, well there was a discussion on the talk page for Daenerys' article (you can find it here) and TAnthony and Flyer22 Reborn decided that it should remain as it is because the photo shows her with one of the dragons. I disagreed because obviously the photos for all the other characters have been replaced. I don't know whether Cersei will ascend to the throne in the books or not but the current photo is the one that shows her in her most recent appearance. Flyer22 Reborn argued that in a story there's no such thing as time or past and present so there's no difference between old and new, and TAnthony also agreed with him as he also believed that the old one represented her character much better. I'd be glad if you could also share your opinions on lead images that are currently used. Keivan.f^Talk 19:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This goes to my point: Arianne may be an important character in the books that we perhaps feel should have an article, but there are probably zero sources out there that discuss the character and would therefore establish notability. All the major reviews of A Dance with Dragons that I can recall focused primarily on Jon, Daenerys, Tyrion and the Lannisters, and maybe some Starks. Our main source of citeable material for many characters is the TV series coverage. As far as the images go: since we are usually restricted to a single image of a character in an article to stay within the confines of WP:NFCC, that image should represent the character as a whole and how they are best known/recognized, not necessarily be the most recent one available. I haven't done a search for more Daenerys images lately, but I don't think a photo of her in a season 6 outfit] is going to improve the article over the current one which includes a dragon, which is important to the character. I'm not crazy about the updated Cersei image either (again, she's had the short haircut and crown for a fraction of the series' run) but didn't choose to fight it; I would not object to a change there. One editor boldly updated many of the images and I/we pushed back on some of them, but I wouldn't use an argument that other characters have recent images to justify further changes. — TAnthony^Talk 23:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Arianne may be an important character in the books that we perhaps feel should have an article, but there are probably zero sources out there that discuss the character and would therefore establish notability. I don't know. You still seem to be making the false assumption that "establishing notability" is about a numerical count of "reliable sources", but this is not how GNG is normally interpreted. We need enough sources to build an article around. Note that self-published sources by respected authorities are also acceptable, and books tend not to have rigorous peer-review or fact-checking processes anyway (self-published sources are reliable for the opinions of their authors, and the same is true for most of the books Jclemens found that mention Drogo). Has anyone actually read that Women of Ice and Fire book? Unless the title is false advertising, I imagine it goes into much more detail on Arianne than on Drogo.

I'm not making any such assumption; I pointed out that the Gilly article has several citations but I am fully aware that while all of AffeL's character articles may have a decent number of sources, they are not really substantial, and represent his quick attempt to keep these articles from being redirected or deleted, as they were (in many cases) the first time he recreated them. As you know, WP:GNG says a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There were relatively few sources talking about the books before the TV series came out. My point about the ADWD reviews I've seen (which are the most recent book reviews, and came out months after the series began) is that they focus on the major "sexy" characters, and though you're free to prove me wrong, I doubt any/many reliable sources discussing A Feast for Crows mention Arianne. I've read the books and I agree that she is more important than Gilly and a number of other characters, but since she has not made it into the TV series, we probably have an uphill battle proving that she's notable. Maybe Women of Ice and Fire will help, I don't know. The point is, it seems to me that 90% of what we find out there is TV series-centric. As book readers we may have a certain perspective, but we can't slant Wikipedia content that way unless the sources back us up. I think I'm agreeing with you that characters like Gilly and Drogo don't need standalone articles, and I would not cry if they were redirected. But I also have a feeling that there is enough material out there, thanks to Game of Thrones, to justify them. I just personally have no interest in working on improving those articles.— TAnthony^Talk 22:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the sparsity of sources on the books before the TV show debuted isn't really relevant, since I'm not arguing that the articles should stay but rewritten so as not to conflate the show with books; I just think there isn't enough on either the books or the show to build a full article, and the basic plot summary (much of which could be written so as to emphasize commonalities) could be merged back into the lists. That said, if we're in basic agreement about what probably should be done then I think we should stop arguing: we can agree to disagree on whether the sources might exist somewhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

All the major reviews of A Dance with Dragons that I can recall focused primarily on Jon, Daenerys, Tyrion and the Lannisters, and maybe some Starks. Wait, what? Have you read the books? I don't hide the fact that I haven't, but as far as I can tell those characters are POV characters in ADWD, while Arianne is not; her chapters were put in the volume published first, AFFC.

Our main source of citeable material for many characters is the TV series coverage. Again, your missing the point -- those sources don't actually give us any usable information for standalone encyclopedia articles, except on certain core characters who would still have articles if Keivan was supreme high ruler of everything. (If I was supreme high ruler of everything all of them would be redirects, which I know will never be accepted, and the compromises to which I'm amenable are too mushy to pin down, so using Keivan's view instead.)

As far as the images go: since we are usually restricted to a single image of a character in an article to stay within the confines of WP:NFCC, that image should represent the character as a whole and how they are best known/recognized, not necessarily be the most recent one available. The images thing was a fight I tried to start further up this page, before AffeL was blocked, and I don't really have the will power to get back into it. I brought up Cersei because it's just such a mess -- whether one is mainly a book fan or a GOT fan, the more recognizable/"iconic" Cersei has long hair and is either the queen-consort or the dowager queen. Assuming that the status quo at the very end of the most recent book or episode will remain stable is silly, let alone assuming that a crowned queen-regnant is ever going to be how Cersei is portrayed in the books (regardless of how many of the sources are about the TV show, our articles are still supposed to cover both). (This paragraph is mostly an apology to Keivan for not responding to their request, rather than a reply to what TAnthony said.)

I haven't done a search for more Daenerys images lately, but I don't think a photo of her in a season 6 outfit is going to improve the article over the current one which includes a dragon, which is important to the character. Again, not really interested in discussing that here, but my problem is that show Dany doesn't look like Dany in the books (she's much older). I don't mind prioritizing an "official" image (which is still bootlegged with a dubious fair use rationale) from the show over fanart (although I can't help but feel that some other licensed card game or board game or TWOIAF has had a more book-loyal illustration of Dany), but it should be contextualized with a caption that says she was aged up. Maybe I could have done that if I waited for AffeL to be blocked, since he was the one who revenge-reverted it with a nonsense edit-summary.

I'm not crazy about the updated Cersei image either (again, she's had the short haircut and crown for a fraction of the series' run) but didn't choose to fight it; I would not object to a change there. One editor boldly updated many of the images and I/we pushed back on some of them, but I wouldn't use an argument that other characters have recent images to justify further changes. Another reason I'm not ready to fight this battle is that I don't know squat about image copyrights. I think that if we use a copyrighted image with a fair use rationale, but the article itself should probably not exist, and the fair use image is not really an accurate illustration of the content of our article (which is the case with most articles that claim to be about both the book and show but the show image doesn't look like how the characters in the books are described), then we are probably stretching fair use. But I might be wrong. My uncertainty about this is a major factor in my not wanting to weigh in on this more than I have to.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One thing that I have in mind, and probably had suggested before, is that promotional photos can be used as the lead images just like those that are currently used in Tyrion and Jon's articles. I don't know what type of license the photos must have as I'm not an expert in copyright-related matters. About Cersei, yes she was known as a long-haired queen but that picture is gone now as Cersei's head has been shaven in the books as well, so I don't have any problem with the current photo but maybe we should've chosen another one which didn't have the Iron Throne in its background. And about the characters' look and appearance, I think that it's somehow a general method right now to use the pictures of the actors who have portrayed those characters in movie or TV adaptations. And about Daenerys, I think she doesn't have to necessarily hold a dragon in her hands, she could be shown in an image on Drogon's back or by his side and fortunately many such photos are available, in fact screen shots from episode nine of season 6 could be used. Keivan.f^Talk 03:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, TAnthony: Do any [fictional character articles have extensive scholarly works written about their subjects]? Bilbo Baggins, Esther, Hikaru Genji, Jay Gatsby, Prince Hamlet, Shylock... the list goes on, and on, and on, and on. The fact that none of those are currently FAs just speaks to the preoccupation of English Wikipedia with modern American popular culture. Again, if you would look at my comments elsewhere to which I linked several times, I had actually already named several of these articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not really defending any of the character articles in question here; anything we redirect can be recreated at some later date if and when the adequate material is available. But we shouldn't be sitting here deciding which articles should stay or go based on our own arbitrary opinions of who is important in the books or the TV series. As you know, that is not really relevant to the actual criteria for an article's existence. Each one needs to be assessed on its own merits and potential, which is I know what Hijiri88 was starting to do when he tagged some of them. AffeL did create a bunch of character articles that did not need to be created; some have been improving, some have not. I would agree that Gilly doesn't need an article, and yet I just took a look at Gilly (A Song of Ice and Fire) and it has a lot of citations. I don't know yet how many of them are really useful and whether the article would survive an AfD, but it speaks to what I said previously about the popularity of the show giving us a wealth of potential sources. I always use Captain Phasma as an example; the character was only in The Force Awakens for a few minutes but generated a lot of attention as one of the few female characters in the series, the first female SW villain and stormtrooper, etc. (and Christie's Game of Thrones connection didn't hurt either, haha).

And yes, I suppose I've been talking about characters from pop culture this whole time. But based on WP policies, a topic doesn't have to be as obviously notable as Hamlet to have an article. Hijiri88, when I quoted you I wasn't suggesting that you are on a campaign to eliminate the bulk of character articles. I just think your threshold for notability may be a little high, and your stated preference re: character articles informs that. It is sort of sad that TV and video game character articles have reached FA status and some of the literary greats you mention have not, but we just haven't gotten around to those yet ;) — TAnthony^Talk 14:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: I don't know yet how many of them are really useful and whether the article would survive an AfD, but it speaks to what I said previously about the popularity of the show giving us a wealth of potential sources. A good guide is this: Don't think about the number of citations. Read through the article and see how much of it is bare plot summary and/or would be more at home in a separate article. Pretty much everything in the "TV adaptation" section of Gilly article is more about Hannah Murray than about Gilly, and pretty much everything else is in-universe plot information. Experienced AFD commenters don't usually talk about the number of sources that mention the subject -- they talk about how those sources can help us build something that looks like an encyclopedia article. At present, despite the number of citations, none of those sources actually make the article better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) to be moved to Dragonstone. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ramsay Bolton listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ramsay Bolton to be moved to Ramsay Snow. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Actor names in TV article plot sections?

A change to MOS:TVPLOT prompted an editor to remove all cast names/links from the plot sections of multiple GoT TV series articles (episodes, season articles, etc.) without discussion. Do we want that, or do we prefer it the way it was? Arguments for and against this MOS change were made six months or so ago at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Plot section and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this (and nor do I want to be), but Alex it was entirely inappropriate of you to archive a discussion here. This isn't directly about the article in question, and is actually correct procedure when attempting to resolve a content dispute -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand, I have been involved in editing the articles for the new Season 7 episodes. I have focused on the article Plot sections, and one thing I have consistently done has been to exclude actors' names from the Plot sections. In each case, actor names have been added back in at least once after I removed them, leading me to take those conversations to the individual episode article Talk pages. Both Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) and Stormborn ended up stabilizing with the actor names absent, and in neither case was I the only editor to remove them. I would like to see the Season 1-6 episode articles also have the actors' names removed from their Plot sections. I have two basic reasons why.

First, the names of the actors are not a part of the episode plot. The plot is, specifically, the set of events that occur in the fictional story. Other information about the episode belongs in different applicable sections. Cutting into the plot description to name an actor is as disruptive to sentence structure and readability as it would be to add mention that a scene's dialogue was dubbed in post-production, or that it was filmed in Spain. This is information that belongs in the article, but not in the Plot section.

And second, parenthetical credits in Plot sections result in some guest cast members being credited up to three times: in the infobox guest cast list, in the article lede, and in the Plot section. Many other cast members are listed twice: some regular cast member in the lede and Plot section, and some guest cast in the infobox and Plot section. These are just bare credits, the actor's name placed next to the character's for identification. Duplicate and triplicate credits are unnecessary; the guest cast should be credited in the infobox and not in the Plot section. If project contributors think it's important to name regular cast appearing in the episode, which makes sense for this show because of how large and changing the cast is, perhaps that should be added to the infobox. And I think actor names should only appear in the lede if a sentence is written about the actor (such as because it was the actor's first or last appearance, or was singled out for critical reaction, etc.), and not as bare credits; but crediting regular actors in the lede could make sense if seen as desirable and if not added to the infobox. --DavidK93 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

David, I'm grateful that you've been taking part in editing the Season 7 episodes, as well as participating in discussion here. I don't have strong feelings about this one but will note in response to your point 1, that many, perhaps internet summaries of TV episodes include actor names. IJBall brought this up in the MOS discussion, IIRC. To your second point MOS:DUPLINK gives explicit tolerance for up to SEVEN instances of the same link in an article, which is clearly excessive and not applicable to episode articles. In this specific case, however, the MOS is clear that infoboxes and captions are not considered excessive link duplication. So really, we're looking at the cast section and the plot section. Finally, I agree that a decision should be made here, normatively, and all the associated pages--episodes, season summaries, etc. should follow that convention. Until such time as we reach such a consensus, I'm fine with the S7 episodes living without cast names in the plot section--if that's what the editors currently working on them want. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I preferred this issue being discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television as we're challenging a guideline, but if you want to merely discuss GoT articles, fine, we'll get a consensus here. I still believe that the actor names must be removed as, in my opinion, they add nothing important to the plot section. A new user also complained about this issue here and said he had found "the actor names to be annoying clutter." The names are simply confusing. Reading a plot section is like reading a story in some ways, and I believe we should merely mention the character names. There's no need to include actor names multiple times in an article while they have already been mentioned in the infobox or lead paragraph or other appropriate sections. Keivan.f^Talk 03:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Jclemens, I don't think MOS:DUPLINK is relevant to the issue I've raised. MOS:LINK addresses whether and how the text of articles should be linked, but appears to be silent as to what the text of articles should be. I had not noticed or cared whether or not the actors' names were linked in their multiple appearances. As for internet summaries of TV episodes, are those typically standalone works? If so, it stands to reason that the author, in writing a piece that in its entirety is meant to be a summary, would include anything of interest from the episode as a whole. On Wikipedia, the episode article has a plot section, and multiple other sections where information other than the plot can be added. --DavidK93 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Right--they're single, integrated reviews without a section breakdown like Wikipedia articles do--they have no specific lead, may have a sidebar for cast, but are nowhere near as organized or comprehensive, in my experience, as the Wikipedia articles. As far as text vs. link... I see your point: it would be possible to have the names without links, but that seems pointless to me as the only reason I can see for an actor link in a plot section would be to quickly see where else a reader might have seen that actor. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any further points, I'm gonna start removing them from the plot. If users really want to find out where they've seen the actor, they can always go through the character link. The whole point of linking the character name is to avoid having to put in the blatent information like that. — IVORK _Discuss 04:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I would expect a discussion to typically stay open for a week or so, but I've not seen anyone object to updating the articles--just me objecting to the ratio of removals to discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume that the no one opposes the removal of actors' names. Jclemens, I don't know whether IVORK has already done it or not, but I'm going to remove the names from the plot. I think you probably don't have a problem with the changes this time, right? Keivan.f^Talk 03:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The only other editor who I would have expected to comment here is AffeL, but he has not, even though he is active and has had an opportunity. I have no further objections to wholesale changes; thank you for being gracious about my objection. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against it, so I will support the change. - AffeL (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External link template

I'm wondering if we should finally consider creating a template like {{Wookieepedia}} (Star Wars) for the ASOIAF wiki and/or the Game of Thrones wiki as a means to discourage excessive cruft and trivia by providing an alternative source for those interested in it. WP:ELNO allows external links to other wikis "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", and there are many Wikia templates and Templates containing links to non-Wikimedia wikis for franchises including Star Wars, Dr. Who, Harry Potter, DC and Marvel Comics, and Tolkien.— TAnthony^Talk 23:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It really seems to be a good idea. As you said, it would be used as an external link for those who want to know all the extra things about the books and TV series. Keivan.f^Talk 00:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

House Mormont

I noticed someone took the Wikilink to Lyanna Mormont out of Bella Ramsey today, and I'm forced to agree: We don't have a good place to cover the house. We have articles on Jeor and Jorah, but nothing on Lyanna or Maege. Given that we have three related characters featuring in GoT, surely we can put a reference to the house and the relationships in? I don't think we need a family tree, but we ought to at least have a paragraph in one of the house articles. Bit even going back through the list of things that got merged years ago, I really don't seem to see one. Ideas or proposals? Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a decent blurb about Lyanna Mormont at List of Game of Thrones characters#House Stark (so far she's only really notable from the show) so I've updated the character redirect to there. All of the Mormonts, in the books or series, are kind of each in different storylines not really connected to their other family members, so there may never be a decent place for a House blurb.— TAnthony^Talk 02:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

TV Episode Plot Section Lengths

As part of my edits to current (Season 7) episode articles, I have worked to reduce the total size of Plot sections. MOS:TVPLOT recommends that Plot sections for television episode articles should not exceed 400 words. Many Game of Thrones episode article Plot sections have been stable at twice this length or longer, and I would like to try to reduce the size of the Plot sections in Seasons 1-6 episode articles. Many of these Plot sections contain well written prose, but contain more detail than necessary about settings, specific dialogue, and background events. When I edit the Plot sections of the new episodes, I usually start after a long Plot section has been written, and I use the existing text as a guide. I cut out details I don't believe are important to understanding the events of the episode, and I add any events that I think are important but had been omitted. And I work carefully to minimize word count through linguistic choices. Then, I monitor the article to see what subsequent changes people make; typically, my broad changes are not reverted, but specific incidents or details get added back in, and I then work to reword those contributions if I feel it's appropriate, preserving the other editors' intents but improving wording and if possible reducing word count. I've prepared an example of the type of edits I try to make. Here is how a passage in Stormborn (Season 7, Episode 2) changed, with my involvement:

• Text before my first edit: Qyburn leads Cersei to a dungeon beneath the throne room where dragon skulls and remnants of the Targaryen rule are kept. Qyburn reveals to Cersei that he has learned from the incidents in the fighting pits of Mereen that dragons are not invincible, and unveils a large Ballista that is capable of penetrating dragon scales and bone. He demonstrates the weapon's efficiency by shooting a bolt into the skull of Balerion the Black Dread, the largest of the Targaryen dragons and the personal mount of Aegon the Conqueror. (88 words)
• Text after my first edit: Qyburn reveals to Cersei a ballista designed to be effective against dragons. (12 words)
• Current text: Qyburn demonstrates a ballista for Cersei; its bolt pierces the skull of Balerion, Aegon the Conqueror's largest dragon. (18 words)

And the current text reflects changes made by other editors that I then modified, as well as changes by other editors that I left unchanged. What I want to know is, will changes like these to the Plot sections of Seasons 1-6 episode articles be seen as constructive improvements, or is there a consensus to reject this aspect of MOS:TVPLOT and changes made in accordance with it? --DavidK93 (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The recent MOS changes to plot sections (which are what you're referring to) are limited consensus that absolutely are not normative, and should not even be listed as MOS suggestions, let alone requirements. They do not differentiate between complex plots like GoT, and Friends and its ilk. Having said that, I am in favor of tightening up prose whenever appropriate. However, sometimes shortening up the word count can also decrease readability by relying on obscure vocabulary--that's not a good outcome either. So, by all means do tighten up and clarify the plot sections, but there is no word number ceiling, so just do the right thing not the numbers-based thing. Also, I recommend editing by paragraph/section rather than all at once, so if one editor objects to your change to e.g. an "At the wall" section, it becomes easier to WP:BRD per section, rather than trying to hash out the entire plot section in one chunk. Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a reasonable standard and process. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, User:Jclemens is way off the mark when saying that the MO:TVS guideline for plot summary length is not normative. Yes, technically he/she is correct to say that limited-consensus guidelines are not normative, but that ignores the fact that there is a long-standing, very broad (project-wide, in fact) consensus that WP:PRIMARY-sourced plot summaries should generally be as brief and to-the-point as possible, with no extraneous details. If we include analysis of minor details, then yes, we can go over the recommended word counts (which are invline with other related guidelines such as MOS:FILM anyway), but we are not allowed do that without citing reliable secondary or tertiary sources, lest we venture into WP:OR territory. So while the precise number "500" my not be supported by a broad consensus and may be treated as more of a "recommendation" than a hard-and-fast rule, that is not license to ignore the requirement to keep plot summaries short. Individually GOT episodes generally contain far less plot than the typical feature film, so writing our plot summaries to roughly fit within the guidelines for feature film plot summaries is out of order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about a GOT episode plot summary is PRIMARY. Have you seen the sheer number of recaps, episode reviews, and whatnot appearing in mainstream RS'es? I mean mainstream mainstream like Forbes, NYT, and WaPo, not mainstream entertainment press like EW or THR. WP:DUE requires that we have proportionate coverage, so I not only disagree with your rebuttal of my statement, but raise you a policy-based (read: trumps MOS every time) reason that GOT plot summaries must be appropriately longer than any other TV show, especially in the latter seasons: they just have far more RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about a GOT episode plot summary is PRIMARY. I have never seen a single inline citation of a secondary source in a GOT plot summary; heck, they're pretty rare in all media articles, the reason being that they are all implicitly sourced to the primary sources themselves. I may not like it, but that's how it works. Have you seen the sheer number of recaps, episode reviews, and whatnot appearing in mainstream RS'es? I mean mainstream mainstream like Forbes, NYT, and WaPo, not mainstream entertainment press like EW or THR. The fact that the plot summaries could be sourced doesn't mean they are. I would argue that it means they should, but the fact is that at present they aren't. WP:DUE requires that we have proportionate coverage, so I not only disagree with your rebuttal of my statement, but raise you a policy-based (read: trumps MOS every time) reason that GOT plot summaries must be appropriately longer than any other TV show, especially in the latter seasons: they just have far more RS coverage. Are you joking? Star wars has had more coverage over the last forty years than every episode of GOT combined: by your logic, Star Wars (film)#Plot should be longer just because the film is very popular and has been analyzed to death, regardless of the actual content of the plot or length of the film. Relative length of plot summaries for various fictional properties is not determined by WP:DUE, and if you are not joking then I must seriously question your competence to engage in policy discussion on these pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Am I joking? Well, maybe a little bit, but only to the extent that certain other editors feel a mandate to limit coverage of fictional topics in an arbitrary manner unsupported by policy (and no, MOS'es are content guidelines, not policy): fact is, there's plenty of RS commentary for GOT summaries compared to their contemporary shows. Star Wars is not the right comparison, because it's a different era and has differing scope and duration of coverage... rather, compare GOT to Black Mirror or OITNB. The lack of inline citations does not mean that a plot summary is PRIMARY, any more than an uncited statement in a random article is necessarily OR: it might be, but the simple absence of a citation doesn't mean that, the impossibility of supplying a citation does. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

But the only difference that RS coverage makes between Black Mirror, OITNB and GOT is with regards to WP:N and whether the individual episodes merit their own articles. Yes, if the only plot summary appears in a season or full series article, the plot summaries of individual episodes will necessarily be shorter than in cases like the current status quo for GOT where every episode gets its own article, but 500 words seems like a fairly reasonable limit for standalone, single-episode articles for a one-hour TV show, and that limit was crafted specifically for cases like GOT, not for articles on TV series where the individual episodes don't meet GNG.

The overly-bloated, fan-crufty level of detail in some of our GOT episode articles' plot summaries is way out of line with the broad community consensus, and even if the two of you constituted a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (and you don't -- I disagree with you, which makes this a 2-1 disagreement at best, and 2-1 is not a consensus) you would not be able to overrule that broader, long-standing community consensus, especially not with arguments like "The MOS wording was crafted by a small group of editors and is not normative".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I am only responsible (not ownership, obviously) for the S1 episodes, but you are, to the best of my knowledge, thoroughly incorrect: a plot detail covered by an RS cannot, by definition, be fancruft (which is itself a pejorative word that should be avoided). The further assertion that, once N is met, the number and prominence of RS'es covering a plot element is essentially irrelevant to how thoroughly that plot is covered, is at least as questionable. I find it curiously Procrustean, and truly don't understand why you think that well-analyzed episodes shouldn't have more words' worth of coverage than those barely noticed by RS sufficient to clear the GNG bar. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's increasingly clear I'm not going to convince you, but your obscure language makes me question whether we are actually disagreeing on the substance here. How could the number of RSes that "analyze" an episode affect the length of the analysis-free plot summary that doesn't cite any of those sources? If you want to write longer articles that include detailed and well-sourced analysis, I have stated numerous times that I am all for that (as User:DavidK93 can attest), but the number of RSes available should not affect the length of the plot summary section as long as the plot summary section does not include any citations of said RSes. Adding more and more detail onto plot summaries that are clearly sourced only to the episodes themselves based on one's own (fan's) interpretation of what is important is fancruft. Whether or not this is the case with the season one articles, it is indisputably what has been going on with the seasons six and seven articles, and the vast majority of other film and TV articles I monitor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, we may not be as far apart as it would appear. Try this on for example: in one of the least significant scenes of GOT S7 Ep7, Theon gets kneed in the groin. Whee, big deal, a trivial plot element that would be cut from the summary, would it not? But wait! WaPo references it: "But Theon keeps coming back for more and turns the tables when his nemesis tries an old-fashioned knee to the groin which has no effect due to his castration at the hands of Ramsay Bolton. Finally, it pays off! Theon kills the man with his bare hands and leads his newly inspired men on a mission to save his sister." in [13]. So, therefore, we need that plot element in the plot summary if we want to comment on it, and we need to comment on it at least a little bit per WP:DUE, because WaPo isn't the only source referencing it: [14], [15], [16], [17] (quick search for 'balls' or 'castrat' to jump to the relevant bits). So, if we do that for every element of the finale--keep each plot element on which RS'es have commented in the plot section--we're going to end up with something A LOT longer than 500 words. There are a ton of them, even down things like Bronn and Pod heading out for a drink because of the supposed contractual clause that Headey and Flynn are not to act in the same scene. That is a more nuanced way of explaining why I think WP:DUE will trump a 500 word limit in television shows that have a lot of analysis. What's your take on my take? Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hijiri88's assessment that RS coverage affects how much information we can and should include in other sections of episode articles, not in the plot section; the length of the plot section should be government primarily by the complexity and extent of the actual plot of the episode. As a significant contributing editor to the plot sections of S7 episodes, I can also attest that my contributions are overwhelmingly sourced directly to the episodes themselves, a primary source. But I will point out that there are occasional citations to secondary sources; off the top of my head, there was a citation for the fact that Viserion is the dragon the Night King killed. Importantly, I disagree that anything seen onscreen must be included in the plot section before it can be included in another section. In the specific case of Theon's castration, I wrote in the plot section that Theon prevails in a brutal fight. If a critic wrote about the importance of Theon's castration to this scene, that's fine to introduce in an analysis section. If something wasn't important to understanding the events of the plot, but is important to a different portion of article content, simply provide context for the reader to understand it where it's mentioned. --DavidK93 (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that there is no requirement for a detail discussed elsewhere in the article to be included in the plot summary. "Theon and the Ironborn captain fight" or some such would be sufficient for the plot summary and then, in a later "Analysis" section (or similar) a sourced statement that Theon is kneed in the groin and shows no pain, apparently because of his earlier castration, to which his opponent expresses shock and awe, could be included, especially if the scene has been noted for its accuracy or inaccuracy with regard to how emasculated men actually react when attacked in the area where their genitals would have been. (I actually don't know, but I imagine it would still have hurt him pretty bad anyway.) Another point that (presumably) might be discussed, attributed to a reliable source, is the apparent plot inconsistency with Euron having known, and announced at the Kingsmoot in front of all the men who fled and joined Asha and Theon, that Theon had no testicles, and Theon's opponent in the 7.7 fight apparently being unaware of this fact. The possibilities for constructing detailed and well-sourced articles on these topics are endless, but the "plot summary" sections, which are entirely in-universe and can make for tedious/unencyclopedic reading, should be kept brief. Look at it in terms of other works: Donald Keene's History of Japanese literature usually begins each of its discussions of pre-modern fictional texts with a brief outline of the narratives, and then goes into more detailed analysis, in which he frequently brings up specific episodes that he had only briefly alluded to, or not mentioned at all, in the initial plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ssn 1 episode images

There is a new discussion regarding season 1 episode images at Talk:Game of Thrones (season 1)#New episode images. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 22:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The Winds of Winter listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Winds of Winter to be moved to The Winds of Winter (novel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

John Bradley West moved to John Bradley (English actor)

Per the Talk page discussion, the actor who plays Samwell Tarly in the HBO series has been moved to the more widely used name John Bradley. Please seek to update incoming links, and adjust usage in articles. On subsequent mentions he should be referred to as "Bradley" per MOS:SURNAME, not "West", "Bradley West", or "Bradley-West". Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Fire and Blood (book)

The new, fan-centric article Fire and Blood (book) needs reliable, secondary coverage, else it may best be merged/redirected to George R. R. Martin, Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire or similar. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fictional predecessor/successor in infoboxes?

Hi, I opened a discussion here regarding the recent addition (by a relatively new editor) of predecessor/successor fields in the infoboxes of ASOIAF characters [18][19][20][21][22]. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 02:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Jon Snow (character) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jon Snow (character) to be moved to Jon Snow. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Winterfell (Game of Thrones) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Winterfell (Game of Thrones) to be moved to Winterfell (episode). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

High Sparrow (Game of Thrones) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for High Sparrow (Game of Thrones) to be moved to High Sparrow (Game of Thrones episode). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) to be moved to Dragonstone (Game of Thrones episode). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) to be moved to Winterfell (episode). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones) to be moved to Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones episode). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.