Talk:Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)

Catelyn VII (Chapter 56)

An unregistered user continues to insist that Catelyn VII (chapter 56) of A Clash of Kings is present in this episode. I have removed this twice, and it has been removed in the past by another user. Does anyone know for sure if it is indeed included in the episode, or if it is not? It seems like it would be way to far ahead of the show to be included, which is why I removed it twice. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, restored before I saw this. Yes, some elements from a dialog between Catelyn and Jaime of that chapter have been included in this episode. However, I'm generally not happy with trying to map book chapters to episodes. Basically, it's all WP:OR and unverifiable. Personally, I'd remove it from all episodes. Amalthea 13:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

All the mapping of the book chapters to the episode have been referenced in the past, using the analysis done by Ran at Westeros.org. The link corresponding to the finale is this one, and it mentions Cat VII. I'd suggest to use this reference and keep the information in the articlie in line with it.--RR (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

George W. Bush image

I feel that it's best that we use a side-by-side "before and after" image, as shown in this source. I was curious about what the edited imagery looks like, and found out what it looks like when I clicked on the reference at the end of the sentence addressing the change. One can argue that if the readers are curious enough, they do what I did (check the reference). But I didn't know that the reference would include the "after" image; I mainly clicked on the reference to see what was stated about this controversy (a controversy I didn't know about until several minutes ago; and that's from reading that part of the Wikipedia article). And not every reader is familiar with the reference system that Wikipedia uses (I mean they don't know to click on the numbers at the end of sentences for verification). Seems best to me to make the "after" image more accessible to readers by displaying a side-by-side version. Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Westeros.org has been contested: See Oathkeeper

The deletion of Westeros.org and the content it supports from this and other articles has been contested here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire and Blood (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718204656/http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation Needed

Hi, I added disambiguation for this page so that people have an easy link to the GRR Martin Book of the same name as the episode because "Fire and Blood" redirects to this page, and not the book. It was removed by Radiphus. The format I used was: {{distinguish|Fire and Blood (disambiguation)|Fire and Blood (book)}} so the top of the page looked like this:

Not to be confused with Fire and Blood (disambiguation) or Fire and Blood (book).

Can someone say why it was removed, or how to do it correctly so that it won't be removed in the future? Nothingbeforeus (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nothingbeforeus: Fire and Blood does not redirect to this page, like you said; it is a disambiguation page. The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. However, the title of this page is not ambiguous, and there is no way a reader looking for Fire and Blood (book) will mistakenly visit this page. It should be expected that any mention of the episode on Wikipedia will be linked to the existing episode article. If you want to have the book mentioned in the article for other reasons, you could do it in a "See also" section. - Radiphus (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Radiphus:I disagree that the title of this page is not ambiguous, that was the reason that I added the disambiguation remark. There is a Game of Thrones book and an episode with the same name. Yes, the title of the franchise is A Song of Ice and Fire, but many TV Shows fans may not be aware of this. I myself was the reader looking for the book page and instead wound up here, so I found it quite ambiguous, which is why I added it. Thankfully WikiHannibal also found it ambiguous enough that they added the same notation.Nothingbeforeus (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nothingbeforeus: You said that the hatnote was added because "Fire and Blood" redirects to this page, but this was never true. Regarding WikiHannibal's addition, i have accepted it as an exception to WP:NAMB, where a more specific page title might still be ambiguous. I don't think it was necessary to bring this up again, after seven months. - Radiphus (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Image and tag

@Psantora: The image does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as it doesn't illustrate anything and the plot is too long per MOS:TVPLOT, as it's longer than 400 words. Considering this, why should the tag be removed and the image readded? --TedEdwards 01:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Regarding the image, this episode was specifically nominated for an Emmy for visual effects on the dragons. This is the first episode in the series where they appear and they are promently featured in the screenshot. It is very much an essential point to be shown in this article. (See the "Filming" section.)

Regarding the guideline at MOS:TVPLOT - it is not a hard and fast rule. Some shows are pretty trivial and need minimal summaries where that 400 word minimum makes sense, others are intricate and need more room. This episode is longer than most TV shows and airs without any commercials. Furthermore, it has multiple interweaving threads that are not easily summarized. I see you are indiscriminately adding this tag to a whole bunch of GoT episode articles. Are you actually evaluating each article independently or just assuming that if they are over 400 words they need to be trimmed? I suggest you stop doing that until you gain consensus for these changes in a centralized place for the Game of Thrones series in general. Otherwise it is a tame form of WP:TAGBOMBING. I understand that you are following the guideline to the letter here, but it is fairly disruptive to add so many tags to so many articles. Do you have any plans to actually improve these articles after adding these tags? - Paul^T+/_C 01:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The image of Daenerys and Drogon, the final and arguably the most powerful scene of the episode (as stated by a number of critics), obviously increases readers' understanding of the episode. In the lead, we mention critics talking about that moment. Lower in the article, we relay their thoughts on that moment, including on the special effects. A visual aid in the lead or in the "Reception" section is fine. I prefer it in the lead. It is common for episode articles to include a lead image. And like I told TedEdwards elsewhere, it's been mentioned by editors before (including me) that we shouldn't use MOS:TVPLOT and MOS:FILMPLOT too strictly. Seems to me that TedEdwards should ask about the image matter at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and the plot matter at the MOS:TVPLOT talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've alerted editors at Talk:Game of Thrones to this matter for a centralized discussion on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't super speak to the use of images as that isn't my area of extertise or an area I have a lot of knowledge about. For the plots, I definitely believe that a lot of the plots can go under 400 words (some of them are just a tad over and have a little too much fluff in them), some of them are unnecessarily long (like, 1000+ words too long). Definitely believe that we can't be too strict though since the episodes have so much content in them. QueerFilmNerd^talk 08:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I say I did not remove images indiscriminately, otherwise I wouldn't have left two, Mhysa and The Lion and the Rose, as they had a clear purpose acceptable by WP:NFCC#8 (which I updated on the file description page), as evidenced by the caption. If you believe any image has a sensible purpose, by all means re-add it, but for this article, it's purpose was not clear, so did not meet WP:NFCC#8. --TedEdwards 11:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Two images out of about 60+ over a period of less than an hour seems pretty indiscriminate to me - that is less than a minute per page to evaluate and make the edit. I suggest you self-revert on these edits until after you have actually reviewed each image and (ideally) reached consensus on the change. - Paul^T+/_C 11:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely refute the idea I wasn't discriminating and wasn't reviewing images. It does not take long to determine if a screenshot serves a purpose beyond "Primary means of identifying an episode of a copyrighted series" (which is complete nonsense, the images were usually just fairly random screenshots, and do not identify the episode). Some episodes I took a little longer to decide before getting rid of them e.g. it took me longer to decide what to do on The Red Woman and The Rains of Castamere, and I ended up going back to Two Swords (after deciding the image did not show the wing movements of a dragon, if the image did I would have kept it). If you in the caption for this episode make note of how the picture of the dragon illustrates something relevant to production/critical details of the article, it would meet WP:NFCC#8, but I removed it when it didn't, becuase NFCC is a policy with legal considerations, and should not be negotiable or breached. --TedEdwards 12:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is that these are completely undiscussed removals from a large number of articles simply because you think NFCC#8 isn't being met. The fact that you included the image for this article in your mass removal, which is very clearly relevant and complies with the policy, shows that you aren't really evaluating each image independently. The proper thing to do would be to gain consensus for the changes you feel are needed in a centralized location before mass removing this content. - Paul^T+/_C 13:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

But what does this image show that must be shown with an image i.e. why does it meet WP:NFCC#8? --TedEdwards 13:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been detailed in many different ways and in multiple places. Are you saying that you don't understand the argument or are you pretending that you didn't read them? But, if you insist:

From my edit summary that started this discussion: frame is from the last few seconds of the final episode of the first season and it shows a pivotal moment in the series and episode. Not having it is detrimental to the understanding of the subject

From my first reply here: this episode was specifically nominated for an Emmy for visual effects on the dragons. This is the first episode in the series where they appear and they are promently featured in the screenshot. It is very much an essential point to be shown in this article. (See the "Filming" section.)

From Flyer22 Reborn's first reply here: The image of Daenerys and Drogon, the final and arguably the most powerful scene of the episode (as stated by a number of critics), obviously increases readers' understanding of the episode. In the lead, we mention critics talking about that moment. Lower in the article, we relay their thoughts on that moment, including on the special effects. A visual aid in the lead or in the "Reception" section is fine. I prefer it in the lead. It is common for episode articles to include a lead image.

This is starting to sound like WP:IDHT. - Paul^T+/_C 13:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, it seems good arguments have been made to keep the image in, and I am trying to listen and I did say If you in the caption for this episode make note of how the picture of the dragon illustrates something relevant to production/critical details of the article, it would meet WP:NFCC#8. So, for me to support including the image, I believe the caption should be changed (and the purpose on the file description page with it) to make the link between this image and the critical reception as is done on Mhysa. I feel linking it to the Emmys is a tenuous reason to keep the image, as the award was for the visual effects of the whole episode. So if you or Flyer22 Reborn make a BOLD edit to the caption, making it similar to Mhysa, the image can be kept, as it will have definitely met WP:NFCC. --TedEdwards 14:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Also, as a suggestion of over images that would work and meet WP:NFCC#8, and example would be for Mother's Mercy, where an image of Cersei actually doing the walk of atonement, and demostrating the production details of using a body double etc. --TedEdwards 14:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing at NFCC that requires this to be included in the caption. I hope that was not the sole basis of your analysis for removing these images. There is a requirement for the image description to have a WP:FUR, which can be updated if needed, but I'm not sure that we agree that any update is needed. And again, this also applies to the other 60+ images that you removed without discussion. Now, I'm sure that some of those images are not as significant to their episode as this one is, but that is why each removal should be discussed individually and not removed unilaterally at the whim of a single editor's understanding of NFCC as it relates to the specific image and article in question. - Paul^T+/_C 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right There is nothing at NFCC that requires this to be included in the caption, but as I've said, non-free images must meet WP:NFCC#8, and without an appropiate caption, the screenshot appears just to be a screenshot for the sake of having a screenshot. Therefore, a caption along the lines of "The final scene, with Daenerys Targaryen and her dragon hatchlings. This scene recieved much critical acclaim." explains why the image is necessary, and links it with the critical acclaim it recieved. On this point File:Game of Thrones S01E10 - Fire and Blood.png needs it's non-free rationale updated, as two boxes are blanked, and screenshots are not needed to "indentify" episodes. --TedEdwards 16:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This without an appropiate caption, the screenshot appears just to be a screenshot for the sake of having a screenshot does not mean the image violates NFCC#8. If the FUR needs to be updated, that is a separate (but important) issue. I've updated the rationale for the image, but I'm sure it can still use some improvement.

Also, I should clarify that I see you did have some prior discussion about this at WT:TV, but that was a discussion with 3 participants, hardly something that demonstrates broad acceptance. Furthermore, you seem to have misinterpretednot applied the relevant bit from Masem: the specific screencap used is the subject of discussion from secondary sources - such as a key moment in the episode, or where there's some production aspect that the image helps explain (eg one example I consider fair is the image on Worlds Apart (Fringe) which id'd as a key moment of the episode by critics and praised in the performance, despite the image just being talking heads, at least at this article (as demonstrated by the above rationales almost directly quoting this passage without even knowing it existed). Again, it very well may be that the majority of the images need to go (and perhaps in some cases better examples can be found), but unilaterally removing >95% of them (repeatedly in some cases, including here) was not appropriate. At the very least it warranted some kind of notification at WP:ASOIAF since the mass editing was directly related to that project. - Paul^T+/_C 16:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I went to a random removed image to see if its episode had similar problems as the above and found myself at "The Bear and the Maiden Fair". That image (again, the final scene of the episode) is also directly referenced in secondary sources and you still removed it: The final scene was very well received: IGN's Matt Fowler called it "a spectacular moment", HitFix's Alan Sepinwall deemed it "gorgeously staged and executed", and David Sims found it "tense, thrilling television". There is plenty to go on there for that image to be restored as well. - Paul^T+/_C 17:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made a BOLD edit and extended the caption. I've done this also because it's much easier for the reader to link this scene with the critical commentary, so the article is easier to understand. I've changed my mind on The Rains of Castamere and put the image back, as I felt the image did a very good job of highlighting Fairley's performance. About the Bear and the Maiden Fair, the image could be reinstated, but we do need to limit the use of screenshots (see Template:Non-free television screenshot) to when they are absolutely necessary, and I feel comparing the bear scene with the dragons hatching, the dragon scene recieved much more critical acclaim than the the bear scene, and has had more of an effect on the show in later seasons. About the WT:TV discussion, I basically gave up on it (and forgot about it until you reminded me) because I wanted quite a wide discussion about all TV series, because I feel the overuse of screenshots is a fairly big problem, but not enough people noticed the discussion. However, I will link you to this dicussion, as this inspired me to start the WT:TV discussion. --TedEdwards 20:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: In case you're interested, I've reviewed my decisions for removing the images, and I accept I was too brutal, and put back in The Pointy End, Blackwater, Oathkeeper, and Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken. There was also an image on The Winds of Winter further down of Cersei being crowned, which I moved upto the infobox. I've also tried to make clear my decisions for removal here, and comments on that (don't care where really) would be appreciated. Thank you --TedEdwards 21:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks for creating the pointer from Game of Thrones and the mention of MOS:FILMPLOT. Given the length and complexity of Game of Thrones episodes (and the fact that they are regularly described as "movie length")[1][2], that guideline is probably more appropriate and reasonable. From there: Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) I think that is exactly what we are suggesting TedEdwards does. - Paul^T+/_C 11:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I also alerted MOS:TV to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but this is a television episode, and it's fairly normal for television episodes to be up to an hour long, like this episode. I don't even know why you picked this article out of the rest, as the plot for this episode, before I started shortening it, it wasn't a tiny bit over, it was almost twice as long as it should be (758 words) according to MOS:TV. --TedEdwards 12:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There are all kinds of television episodes and some are way more complex than others. My point is that you are applying a guideline indiscriminately to large amounts of articles without taking anything into account other than a hard word-count of the section. This is not appropriate. Pinging Jclemens as I know he has argued this point in the past. - Paul^T+/_C 13:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

On this point I've shortened this plot to below 400 words. --TedEdwards 13:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Even though the MOS:TV states that TV shows should be 400 words. However, Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Length states However, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance and I believe that the Game of Thrones plots fit that. I believe that some of the episodes can probably be cut down to near or under 400 words (the ones that are 1000+ definitely can, they're way too long, film plots aren't even that long), but some are far too long and have too much happen to shorten them without cutting out important content. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, saw the ping. This is part of the reason I've pretty much given up on Wikipedia: Procrustean editors who decide to reshape what other people have done, who generally contribute nothing themselves, and make no argument that the content they decimate is actually improved by their editing. MOS' are, on the whole, written by people who are more interested in writing rules to govern others' content than actually writing content. The idea that a Sponge Bob episode and Game of Thrones episode should be allotted the same length of words in a plot summary is plainly ludicrous, but certain editors are aggressively oblivious to this fact. I'm sure TedEdwards is a nice, well meaning person on some level, but Wikipedia would clearly cover popular fictional content better (and by better, I mean in a way that actually serves our customers, the readers) if he were absent and his ideas, along with most of the rest of the MOS'es and the idea that MOS'es are a global consensus which can be implemented without prior agreement from involved editors... were seen for the horrible counter-productive ideas that they are. You might think that being a popular topic with a ton of RS coverage would make GoT exempt from this nonsense? Nope. Sigh. Bye again. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I hope you read this. IMO the "400 suggested word limit" is designed to ensure that plot summaries stay as summaries, and not become overlong huge walls of text. Therefore asking editors to keep under 400 words is a good idea, as long as there are exceptions, but I don't think Game of Thrones need to be an exception, as the limit is designed to be for more complex shows (f.y.i. it's shows like Sherlock, i.e. a detective show with 90 minute episodes, that may need plots above 400). If I was writing for cartoons, I'd probably end up going well under 400 words, as going up to 400 words would be pointless overkill, going into way too much detail. Saying popular fictional content on Wikipedia would be better without me is taken as a personal attack, and I would like to say to you I'm going nowhere. --TedEdwards 09:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll quickly say I do however disagree with the attitude that some editors that when a plot is shorter than 400 words, no details must be added to plot and therefore make it longer than 400 words. All this does it makes the plot unable to be improved, so getting all the important detail is in is more important than keeping it short; that can possibly be done later, but there is a reason for WP:IAR (obviously for more than this).
However, the purpose of plot summaries is to provide context, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand the other sections of the article that comment on the plot (such as "Production" or "Reception"), Wikipedia is not the place to have highly detailed plots as it's not encylopedic, hence they don't need to be long, hence the 400 word limit in the MOS. --TedEdwards 17:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Removal of Game of Thrones' episodic Infobox images

Hi all. There is a discussion taking place on the Game of Thrones talk page regarding the removal of the Infobox images on every episode's article. Some much needed consensus is needed on this change. Please join in! Thanks!--Templeowls17 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)