Talk:Game of Thrones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Title?

I checked, but might have overlooked this in the article. What source verifies that "Game of Thrones" is the title? I'm curious, since the first book is called A Game of Thrones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.159 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find the official announcement with a cursory search, but it's being referred to as Game of Thrones almost everywhere. The closest thing to a reliable source I've found is this from Hollywood Reporter. --Amalthea 14:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers folks, editing the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.246.76 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title include the TV series parenthetical in order to distinguish it from the novel and related media? AusJeb (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The agreement was that, since the tv series is the only adaptation that drops the "A" from its title, no disambiguation is required. IMHO it's a little bit of a stretch, but it's defensible.--RR (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, qualifiers are usually only added to a page title where needed. The primary meaning of a title (if there is such a thing) still won't have a qualifier, like Mouse. We also link to and from the book article in the hatnotes. Amalthea 14:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Series Overview

I've just read the section and I think that we should try to reduce a lot the spoiler level. I'm aware that they are permited in Wikipedia, but I think that including spoilers from the first three books is going to far. Specially when they are completely unneeded: you can make a "series overview" without any need to go into specifics and describe the War of the Five Kings or Jon's rise through the Watch. In my opinion this section should include a broad description of the main themes of the series and not much more.

Additionally, we can't be sure that the plot of the series will match the plot of the books. Either for decisions of the writers or external factors such as actors availability, things could change.--RR (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed it. It was a direct copy from A Song of Ice and Fire#Plot summary anyway, and I've linked there instead in the section. Amalthea 08:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Game of Thrones (TV series) → Game of Thrones — Currently Game of Thrones redirects to A Game of Thrones however as this article does not use the "a" in its title being moved there would remove the requirement of having the (TV series) suffix in the title, in line with wikipedia policies avoiding disambiguation when available. The current redirect could be fixed with a hotnote on this article redirecting people to the books page. - –– Lid^(Talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nominator. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. At least until the series get greenlighted (if they will), I think the average wiki user is better served being redirected to the book article rather than here if typing "Game of Thrones". – Haltiamieli (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose considering that the TV series is based on the book, it is logical to think the book is primary meaning of this term, so either redirect to the book or makea dab. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The book is the primary use of the term and it is better for the redirection to remain. In addition, recent official references to the TV series have called it A Game of Thrones, so we may very well need to move the article to 'A Game of Thrones (TV series)' in the future if that is confirmed, so messing around with renamings and redirections now only to have to change them a few months down the line seems redundant.--Werthead (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have WP:BOLDly moved Game of Thrones (TV series) to the new title Game of Thrones before I noticed this (old) move request, sorry. Two of the three oppose !votes are moot since they were based on "At least until the series get greenlighted" (which it is now) and recent official references to the TV series have called it A Game of Thrones (the new 15-minute preview reel was released under the title Game of Thrones though). However, there may still be opposition since the book may still be the primary use of the term even if it starts with an "A" in the title. Feel free to move the article back to its old title if my move was inappropriate. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Character Descriptions

I think character descriptions need to reduce adjectives that reveal too much about the character's story arc. I'm fine with describing Tyrion as "sarcastic and cynical" because this will likely be evident from the first line Tyrion recites. Joffrey, however, should not be described as "the inhumanly cruel oldest son of Robert Baratheon and heir to the Iron Throne". We likely won't find out that Joffrey is "inhumanly cruel" until several episodes in. At the start of the book, Joffrey is all chivalry toward Sansa. So calling him "inhumanly cruel" here could be construed as a spoiler.—Furrever (talk 15:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, the TV series will likely contain variations from the books. Just because something happens in the books there is no guarantee it will happen in the TV series, or in the same manner. For this reason, descriptions that draw on the books should be minimized or eliminated in favour of what we know is definitely the case on-screen.--Werthead (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bring this up again, I think the character descriptions are revealing way too much. Saying that Jaime Lannister is "clandestinely involved in an incestual relationship with [his sister]" is an out an out spoiler. This descriptions may be suitable once the pilot as aired, but until then this is too much information for the casual viewer.—Furrever (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, mainly because WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Intimate plot details/events/etc. from the book have been placed in what is supposed to be one-line, brief, and simple character descriptions. Until the episodes air or HBO reveals anything, we should not presume that what has happened in the books will also occur in the TV series as well. —Mirlen^Talk 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. There is no spoiler policy on Wikipedia (there was one once but it was removed as unencyclopedic), but there are no guarantees the TV series will follow the course of the books and there are already changes to character descriptions, ages and as a result the timeline. Keeping the TV series as separate as possible is a good idea.--Werthead (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for setting me straight guys. I suppose I had the right idea, just the wrong justification.—Furrever (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Commentary?

Everything in this article so far has stuck with the basic facts of the casting and the production. What do others think of having some well-sourced commentary on what the series will be like and how it fits in with HBO's other offerings? James Poniewozik's blog at time.com would be a good place to start. I understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page, but it seems to me that a bit of well-sourced context for the facts of the article would be helpful. Nwlaw63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

The reason why there's basically no commentary on GoT is because the TV series is currently still non-existent. Once Season 1 is officially greenlit (hence, validating the existence of the series), we should be seeing more information that will allow us to substantially expand beyond the bare-bone facts. By then, the crew and cast should be open enough to give notable commentary like other TV articles of FA status, such as Lost (TV series), have. As far as the critical reception section goes, I think we should wait to add it until after the series starts airing. Then the fact that the three TV critics exhorted HBO to greenlit the series can be added as an addition to their review of the series itself. (For instance, the sentence could go along the lines of 'TIME's James Poniewozik, who expressed support for the series before it was greenlit, said "[insert quote from his review of the series after airing].") —Mirlen^Talk 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Added Hollywood Reporter claim that the series will almost certainly be greenlit - it seems relevant. If others thinks it falls into the rumor category, or the category of something that shouldn't be in the article until series is or isn't greenlit, let me know here. Obviously, this will have to be changed/removed once a decision is made on the series. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if the previous sentences saying the series would probably be picked up should be removed now that the series is greenlit. Opinions? Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, someone had removed them but I restored; given that we still know relatively little about the series, I thought it was still interesting/notable and helps with the development chronology.— TAnthony^Talk 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Article format

I know there's not yet much here, but I wanted to comment on Mirlen's recent changes, which I feel go somewhat against standard article format. The lead paragraph of an article should summarize the entire article, basically touching upon each section to come; this edit turned the lead pgh into a single summarizing sentence which doesn't do that. By subsequently removing the Pilot section here and moving the pickup notice to the end of the Development section (uh, Development means things that occur before production, btw) we have an odd chronology of optioning the rights, shooting a pilot, pilot gets picked up, and then Casting. Weird.— TAnthony^Talk 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We can rename the Development section so that it'll encompass the info contained within it (what do you think about Conception?), but I don't feel there is enough information about the series for us to summarize the main article. Also, my problem with the previous edits was that it placed too much emphasis and detail on the pilot episode. If you look at the FA status TV series articles, such as Lost (TV series) or House (TV series), none of them have separate sections devoted to detailing the pilot. In the long term perspective, such a section in a TV show article isn't necessary. Notice the absence of such a section in Manual of Style for TV articles. As for your objections that my changes go against the standard article format, I'll reference the style guidelines for TV series articles:

For television articles, the first paragraph should consist of basic information about the show, such as when the show first premiered, country, setting, genre(s), who created/developed the show, primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show), and when the show stopped airing.

Minutiae details about when the pilot was filmed shouldn't be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Mentioning when the pilot was first broadcasted, on the other hand, is certainly appropriate to mention. However, we do not have a confirmed, verifiable date as to when the series will first premiere.

As for the sequencing of placing casting after conception/development, that is merely the order that can be found in this particular section of the style guidelines as well as in aforementioned FA status TV articles, i.e. Lost (TV series) and House (TV series).

As an afterthought, the lead paragraph looks bare (compare to, say, the sample from the guidelines used as an example of a good lead paragraph below) because we have very little idea as to what the series will generally be about.

The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company. It is a satirical parody of the middle class American lifestyle epitomized by its titular family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. The show is set in the fictional town of Springfield, and it lampoons many aspects of the human condition, as well as American culture, society as a whole, and television itself.

All we know that HBO's GoT is going to be an adaptation of the original ASoIaF series, since we shouldn't assume that what is in the books will necessarily be in the series, as they are two separate works. —Mirlen^Talk 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, MOS:TV#Lead paragraphs notes "The lead paragraphs of an article should serve both as a quick introduction to the television show and a concise overview of the article itself," and after your Simpsons example it goes on to say: "The subsequent paragraphs should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principle cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique." This basically means there should be a sentence or so in the lead summarizing each section to come in the article. By that account, I think at least the pickup of the pilot and potential airdate should be mentioned in some way because it represents the subsequent information about production. And the reader has to get down to the end of the first section to find out date-related material on the series? This series is not going to (potentially) air until a year from now, we have to present what information we have in the most logical way, not stick to a layout that will only be truly effective when we have more material. What you seem to be calling "redundant" (mentioning something in the lead and expanding upon it in a later section) is exactly what we're supposed to be doing. Ultimately I agree that a section on the pilot alone would not be necessary, but at this point that is all there is to the series. This section you note above gives the basic chronology: development, casting, filming. The way the article currently is, it seems jarring to read about March 2010 pickup and then jump back to the May 2009 casting of Dinklage. This isn't exactly a deal-breaker because I understand that we don't have a lot of info to cover. But the article's current lead introduces the topic but really tells me nothing of what is to come.— TAnthony^Talk 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But there's too little information regarding the series as a whole to make a summary in the lead paragraphs. And often times, if you look in the case of FA status TV articles, the pickup of the pilot is not mentioned in the lead paragraphs. I can understand including the airdate, but we don't have the exact date -- only a vague, temporary, 'maybe-maybe not' guess. I feel like if we're going to put up the airdate, it should be a confirmed, accurate, and exact fact.

Also, I'm certainly not against mentioning something in the lead and expanding it upon a later section ("something" is a pretty vague word, you'll note, so I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "something"), I just don't think it's necessary to summarize the article (which is supposed to be about the series) in the lead paragraphs at this point in time when we have so little information about the actual series. And I'm afraid I don't understand why it's jarring to read about the March 2010 pickup of the series and then back to the May 2009 casting of Dinklage, when that's the order in which the events actually happened. Or perhaps I'm not doing a better job of understanding your point; are talking about how it's jarring to find the Development and conception section followed up by Casting, rather than Casting and then Development and conception? Because in that case, it'd probably be best to take that issue up with WikiProject Television. —Mirlen^Talk 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me try to break it down.

The lead paragraph should summarize the article, not necessarily the topic as a whole. There is no series. There is a pilot. And a potential series, because nothing has been shot or aired. When the article is actually about a full series there will be no need to make a big deal about the pilot in the lead, but for now that's all the article is about! You really think we should have a vague lead and hide information about the series pickup deeper in the article until the show airs? And what if production is shut down after filming two episodes, what if they produce them all but they never air? The article needs to present the available information in a helpful way, and evolve as the information evolves. Why should the reader have to go through half the article to find out that the series has been greenlit and will likely air in 2011?

Not sure what you don't understand about the chronology: Dinklage was cast in May 2009 and then the series was picked up in March 2010. The article chronology kind of reverses that because we're reading about the pickup before the casting.

MOS:TV#Background/production lists these suggested topics to be covered in series TV articles:

• Conception and development
• Format
• Writing
• Casting
• Filming
• Production design
• Filming locations
• Effects
• Music
• Cancellation and future

You will note they are listed basically in the chronological order which these things would occur in the production of a TV series. "Conception and development" equates to Martin writing the books, HBO optioning the rights, somebody conceiving that the events of the first novel would span the entire first season. "Writing" is Benioff and Weiss writing the pilot. Then casting. "Filming" commences with the pilot and ... then it gets picked up. Later this section contains info about other episodes or whatever. Then the article would start delving into subtopics that diverge from linear chronology: Production design, locations, etc. etc. I think you are thinking that the shooting of the pilot falls into development process, but it doesn't; development is what happens before. — TAnthony^Talk 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think writing a lead paragraph to concisely summarize the rest of the article when we know too little about the series is premature. Because that's not necessarily the kind of info you'd put in the lead paragraphs for a TV series, I feel that the important info we ought to put about the pilot is the airdate, which we don't know aside from a vague 'maybe it'll air in the spring' guess. There's not really all that much to the article, I personally don't see the trouble for the reader to read the conception and development to find info about a potential airdate (not the verified airdate), which is the first section he/she reads. I think it's better to wait for a confirmed airdate before adding it to the lead paragraphs. But I can settle for adding the potential airdate (even if it's not the confirmed airdate) in the lead paragraphs, since you seem to feel so strongly about this, but I do not think info as to when the pilot was filmed is all that necessary.

I honestly don't think it's that jarring to read about the pickup before the casting. Information about the pick-up about the series would go under the Conception and development section (FA status TV article Lost (TV series) doesn't mention the pick-up date, but they do mention the debut of the series on-screen in the Conception section) and the casting of Dinklage, which happened incredibly early on because he was the producers' (as well as the author's and the fans') dream pick, should be in the Casting section. Also, in the long run, specific dates as to when the casting happened or when the series was green lit probably won't matter too much -- see the FA status TV articles as examples. There, each article's respective casting section don't even mention when certain actors were cast, only that 'so and so was cast for this part because [insert reason]' of '[names of these following actors] were cast in season 1.' Bringing this up in this discussion might be a little premature on my part, but we can change some of the actions -- at least those under the Background and production heading -- to that format (less chronology-based and more concept-based) after we know more about the series, and I imagine we will have to do so anyway if we were to submit this article for GA or FA consideration in the future.

You're right that the shooting of the pilot would fall under the Filming section rather than the Development section. If I had placed it under there, it was my mistake. But I think info about the pickup of the series and its airdate (debut) would fall under Conception and development. —Mirlen^Talk 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish we had more experience with each other's edits so we would know if we can trust each other's opinion or one of us is just crazy, LOL. I've always basically agreed with you when we're talking about the completed article down the road, but for right now, it's an article about a TV pilot. That's all that exists, and pickup or not, a million things can happen. Check out featured article Aquaman. I really see no reason to keep this article so vague for so long, info is not necessarily "premature" if it's sourced and all we have. My biggest problem is the fact that the lead paragraph isn't telling the reader a whole lot, like who's in it or if it's going to possibly air tomorrow or in 2015. The lead should summarize the article so a reader doesn't necessarily have to continue reading. A little later on I'll make an attempt at a tweak and we'll see what you think.— TAnthony^Talk 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed your change, thanks for the compromise. You'll see I made some more alterations.— TAnthony^Talk 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I'm glad we came to an agreement. I also apologize for responding a little late, but I had RL spring upon me some untimely work. I'm still getting through that, so I'll check in with you more in-depth later. But briefly skimming through the preliminary edits, I think the lead paragraphs is better. We'll probably have to change the format again when we have more info, but you already know this. We'll tackle that as new info comes. :) Thanks! —Mirlen^Talk 06:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording a bit in the lede - the 'had previously stated line' seemed very awkward.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Three Storylines

This is a minor point, but the reference to 'three storylines' seems odd in that the number is both subjective and unexplained. I realize that the number comes from the plot summary article that gives the 'three storylines' figure, but that article explains that contention by telling about Danny/Others/Westeros. A reader of the books would probably say there's 50 storylines, not 3. Three categories of storylines, perhaps. My point is that a very brief description shouldn't focus on a subjective number without explanation, but should probably instead make the point that there are lots of storylines - 'multiple storylines' would be indisputable. Also, the writing of this paragraph seems a little clunky all told - I wonder if there's a way of tweaking the whole thing so it reads cleaner. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, did a quick rewrite based on an overview sentence I wrote for some of the book articles.— TAnthony^Talk 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks excellent - that's exactly how I would have changed it, if I was a better writer and less lazy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 03:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Created by

This isn't strictly a necessary item in the article by any means (after all, not all shows conform to the same format), but I was curious if David Benioff and Dan Weiss could be considered 'creators' of the television adaptation as they seemed to have took the helm of the project since its origins. —Mirlen^Talk 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it seems that way. Never mind. —Mirlen^Talk 07:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Filming Locations

Has no one noticed as of yet that the time of the beginning of on-set production is in the future, but stated as "began" (26th of July 2010)? Also, the whole section is written in past. And the links don't give a clue to when the actual date is. To be honest there doesn't even seem to be a date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.236.74 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've fixed up the filming locations section, including its tense. You're right that there is no on-set production beginning date, but we do have the starting date for the principal photography for the first season, so I've changed it from on-set production to principal photography. If there's anything else you see that needs additional editing, feel free to do so. —Mirlen^Talk 02:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, what's the craic with the political stuff here? "Province of Ulster in the north of Ireland". I thought the source said "Northern Ireland"? I don't care much, but it seems pointless to try and make a political point in this article.80.45.152.173 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmental Damage?

I'm wondering whether other editors think mention of the controversy about the environmental damage inflicted by the use of sand in filming in Malta is relevant - it's certainly supported by numerous secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Episodes

I don't expect to see episode summaries at this stage, but is there any indication of how many there will be in the first season? Or episode length, though I'd feel safe in guessing c. 60 mins. Barsoomian (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A 10 episode first season, 60 minutes each. LeftHandedGuitarist (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The first episode is called Winter is Coming, sourced from HBO's schedules, so we can look at creating a page for that in the near future.--Werthead (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

International airing section

I'm getting tired of people picking on this page for pedantic reasons whilst leaving others totally untouched. So, from the top, Westeros.org and Winter is Coming are recognised authorities on the TV series, are linked as such by HBO's website and have listed the international airing dates with the cooperation of the original broadcasters and HBO. If it is somehow unacceptable to do this, great, but I expect to see similar tables removed immediately from every other TV show entry which has them. Be consistent in how you apply the rules or don't do it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, deleting valid, accurate and useful information for spurious reasons is a violation of the spirit of the website.--Werthead (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, such lists are deprecated, you can read that on WP:MOSTV. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, FYI if I come across such lists I usually remove them, as I did here. On the "recognised authorities", they're fan-sites and therefor not acceptable as sources. If the info is from HBO, then link to HBO instead. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Specialist websites about the subject in question which have existed for a decade or more and are used to release information from official sources cannot be used as sources for Wikipedia. Holy smokes, we're going to have to delete half the entries on the site. Better get to it then.--Werthead (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this listing again, please provide a proper argument why we should include this list which nobody is gonna care about after 18 april. Yoenit (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway. The show has been showing on Screen network in Korea along with advertisements for the translated first two books. Whether it will continue to air (the full season has finished as of Saturday the 15th), I do not know. But it has been aired in Korea and Korea is lacking from the listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.121.153.85 (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of a non-free image.

This article uses the non-free image File:Game of Thrones 2011 Intertitle.png in the infobox. Fine with me, except that we also have the free version File:Game of Thrones 2011 logo.svg. The image is thus not irreplacable and appears to be inapropriate use of a non-free image according to our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Yoenit (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

How "Game of Thrones" slew all comers

"The HBO drama's patient approach to storytelling pays off with one of the best first seasons ever " Review.--87.178.112.128 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice of british cast

An anonymous editor keeps trying to remove the statement that the show is a predominantly British cast. This statement is correct and has been with the article for as long as I remember reading it. The same editor added that it is an American show right before removing the British cast part. I did not challenge the addition of "American" to the line since it is accurate. Just like it is accurate that it is a predominantly British cast. This line is even more needed with the "American" addition to the paragraph. For the record, I am American and I think it it useful to note that the cast is British. If others think that this statement (that I keep reverting the removal of) should be removed, please state why here. If no one makes a reasonable argument for removing that content, then it should stay. Would prefer frequent editors/viewers of the article to voice their opinion because I don't want to be the only person reverting (I think I'm at my third revert which is the most I should be doing).Caidh (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Make a note of it in the cast and characters section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.12.245 (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly an accurate statement, although I don't know that it's something that needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article (let alone the first sentence). The actual show's country of origin is surely more relevant than that of most of the cast. And then, what about the crew? Or the filming locations? Interesting bit of trivia that this is, I would agree that it's best to excise it from the opening and relegate it to the "Cast and Characters" section. BarqSimpson (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it isn't very in tune with MOS. There are plenty of American films with mainly British casts and none of them mention the cast in the lead. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ratings per episode

Could someone put up the ratings per episode into the episode list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.118.224 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cast & Characters list

I feel like I am editwarring constantly to keep this list in its current state, so I would like to know if there is actually consensus for this version. My reason for wanting to stick to the official version is to prevent a massive list full of extras and characters with practically no screentime and also to stop things like "Khaleesi Daenerys "Dany" Targaryen, Daenerys Stormborn, The Unburnt, Mother of Dragons". Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with you. The purpose of the cast listing is to identify the character, not to give the full title. Do we really need to know that Mark Addy played "Robert son of Steffon, of House Baratheon, the first of his name, King of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men by the grace of the Old Gods and the New"? Just stick to the sources. Besides,many of those titles correspond to the books and not to the show (at this point tv Dany has never been called "stormborn", "unburnt", or "mother of dragons")--RR (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that we are at it, couldn't we agree in an order to sort the characters in the list? I don't care much which, but some critter is needed. Any suggestions? Number of episodes? Alphabetical? The one used in the opening credits?--RR (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The official website ranks them alphabetical (by last name if available, else first name), but I don't really like that listing order. The opening credits order makes more sense to me (practically the version we have now, but with dinklage at the end), but at least the version for episode one does not list Aiden Gillen and Jason Momoa. I must note however I have not seen anybody object to the order in which characters were listed so far, so we might just stick with the current version for now. Yoenit (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll rearrange it to the opening credits order. Aidan Gillen is listed after Ian Glen in the episodes he appears, and Jason Momoa gets the last position in the closing credits (apparently he is from the main cast but for a strange reason guests an "also starring" mention at the end)--RR (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with your reasoning whenever I saw your changes to the list. Like you said, we need to draw a line somewhere, both regarding characters and names; the primary source seems like a very good candidate to me. Amalthea 10:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with keeping the titles out. The character's name (or in some cases, nickname like 'Littlefinger') are fine.Caidh (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take the character list and put it in paragraph form. People glancing at the page shouldn't see that Sean bean is only in the first season. Feel free to edit it and make it better J52y (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Details on VFX (Interview June 2011)

• Interview with VFX Producer Lucy Ainsworth-Taylor.--87.178.115.98 (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sophie Turner link to wrong Sophie Turner

Currently the link for the actress portraying Sansa links to some really gnarly Australian slapper who shares the same name. Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.106.79 (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Theon's sister Asha

Gemma Whelan as Asha Greyjoy (and they changed the character name to Yara) http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/08/02/game-of-thrones-greyjoy-asha/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.248.108 (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Importance of new casting announcements

As Season 2 announcements keep rolling in, I don't think it's going to be as important to add every single announcement we get. For example, while a nice part, Pyromancer Hallyne and Xaro are going to be minimally used. The Season 1 casting only lists much more prominent characters, and that makes more sense as we go further.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.68.8 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2011‎ (UTC)

Are user-nominated, user-voted "EWwy awards" valid for inclusion?

From Entertainment Weekly: "Votes and nominations are cast online by anyone who chooses to participate." Googling shows that these awards are indeed a fan-voted log-on-to-Facebook-to-participate thing. This doesn't seem very valid for inclusion. I've seen other TV show pages where, say, IMDb ratings are kept out of critical reactions for the same reason...because they're user ratings and thus really a popularity contest, not an award. (Even if some of the "awards" themselves these days are just as bad.) The Metacritic user score is listed, but clearly labeled as a "user score" and accompanies the critic score. It's not as easy to do that with the "EWwy award", since it's less valid being the "popular winner" and not a score that can be compared. Any reason not to remove this? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Reception

I really do believe there should be a section dedicated to TV differences from the novels as far as the story is concerned. I would be glad to provide content for this section if permitted.76.110.10.173 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that are many articles from mainstream newspapers and magazines — such as Chicago Tribune, TIME, Entertainment Weekly, and The Guardian — noting the pre-production/premiere hype of the series from critics and fans alike, which apparently is unusual for a TV show. I think it's notable enough to warrant a mention or two in the Reception section. Thoughts? —Mirlen^Talk 06:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent idea Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'll try to get around writing that as a way to start-off. —Mirlen^Talk 07:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest this - The Guardian suggesting that the GoT is the most anticipated television show ever made is certainly noteworthy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the new section - it's a pretty lame beginning, but at least it's started - improvements welcome here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

HBO sent out the first 6 episodes to critics and a huge amount of reviews for the show have now been published in various places, should we start adding some here? LeftHandedGuitarist (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Does anyone else think mention should be made of HBO's remarkably unique publicity campaign before the show's debut? They really went all out with the online Maester's Game, the free food truck, the Iron Throne pedicabs in NYC, etc.? It sure seemed to soften up the media critics. Lynxx2 (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why don't you go ahead and give it a try? I remember several newspaper articles covering the food trucks and maesters path, so you should have plenty of source material to work with. Yoenit (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Links to Wikia site

The reversion of the add to a link to the Wikia site for the TV series has an erroneous reason given for it. Links to external Wikis are allowed, indeed encouraged to avoid fancruft on Wikipedia itself, but only for Wikis which are 'stable' (by which I take it mean they must have been around for a while) and have a number of editors. For these reasons, the deletion of the link to the GoT Wikia is correct at this time, but reinstating it once the Wikia has been established for longer and has more contributors will also be correct, otherwise editors will have to go through virtually every single franchise of note on Wikipedia and remove the links to their respective specific Wikis, of which there are many.--Werthead (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

One and a half years have now passed, and I think the articles are stable enough to include links to the Fire and Ice wiki and similar, like the Wookieepedia at wikia is for Star Wars. TGCP (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Soft Porn Element

Someone should add details about its soft-porn content 203.219.215.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Why? It's not like it focuses for long on the sex scenes. Those scenes are in the show because they're in the book. --207.223.31.214 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is par for the course for premium cable. It's also very violent; also par for the course. Jacotto (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to argue violence vs porn, the fact is this series is on par with soft-porn sex industry releases. It sets a new level benchmark for sexual content in a public tv show without being restricted to a porn channel. 203.219.215.14 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Provide independent, reputed sources supporting your claim and it can be included in the article. Otherwise, there's no point to debate this here.--RR (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, let's talk about naked breasts and full frontals. This is so shocking. I don't give a damm, if guts are spilled, throats are cut or arms are cut off. Showing half naked females is endangering our kids. They are supposed to learn how to fight, not how to bed wenches.--87.178.112.128 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd probably add a comment about it. HBO has capitalized on the changing times with the addition of sex in their shows. If you think about what makes this show different and trend setting, the visual sex is part of it. Sex has been mostly taboo in Western Media for like the last 1000 years. Historians studying this time period can use mainstream pop culture, GoT, and Tru Blood... even Jersey Shore, as a precedent for a benchmark when sex started become more acceptably displayed. That we're living in an era of less prudish restrictions, but that we're still at a cultural crossroads because there are people who still find sexual displays "shocking!". Anyway I think it's interesting simply from the historical perspective. I hope you agree.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, TV shows like Game of Thrones have become more sexualized...it is, likely, indeed appropriate to add a notation about this. However, this is NOT "soft porn." Just to use Wikipedia's definition of pornography: "Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction." The purpose of explicit content in shows like Game of Thrones is more as a stylistic element...or, like you said, maybe to "capitalize" on it. To assume "soft porn" without very specific references (e.g. a study/exposé on TV shows showing "soft porn" to make money) would require adding unsourced material. Even the stuff out there that says "HBO is adding porn to draw viewers" contrasts with other sources that say "the sex scenes are well justified for the storyline" or whatever. In short: the average viewer does not watch a show like Game of Thrones for sexual arousal or erotic satisfaction...thus it is not "soft porn" as far as I can tell. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to take a moment to say: WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!? If they can see what boobs look like then they'll be traumatised... TRAUMATISED... into thinking that all females have boobs. And what then? We might have to turn off the TV during dinner and have a family discussion about what sex is like or something (aren't those lazy damn teachers meant to be doing that?). It'll take so much time, and I really really wanted to watch Die Hard 7: Why won't you die already? tonight.

Seriously. This is a complete non issue. It would not be appropriate to add a notation about it unless it's been discussed in a reliable source (read that last bit as any source which doesn't include any combination or singular instances of the words: "won't", "somebody", "please", "think", "of", "the", and/or "children").

If anything needs commenting, it's how our society allows the portrayal of all levels of gruesome violence but goes into righteous fits of rage if anyone sees so much as a naked belly button. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I was more trying to say that it would be appropriate to note the show's sexual content in a critical commentary section...but absolutely not that someone should "add details about it being soft porn" or whatever. (You can indeed find numerous discussions about the sexual content online...so I'd say it's notable for a brief mention in the body. Don't think so enough to add it myself, though.) But it's NOT soft porn, obviously, which was the main point I was trying to convey.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw the scene involving a midget in a whorehouse and mistakenly ended up in a whorehouse full of midgets. It was hard to explain that one to the wife, but she was understanding when I told her I'd seen it on TV. The effect it has on us poor men these days, eh?! 89.242.111.77 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's "dwarf", not "midget"- you are using a word that is very offensive to people with dwarfism. 216.135.213.106 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to this issue, I don't really care whether someone's perception would label it a soft porn. What would be neat I think,is if a "reliable resource" could be quoted as GoT follows a historically pertinent use of sex as a popular culture reference to changing attitudes about sex. So for all you folks that love to watch director commentary.. keep a look out for those "reliable resources".--Sparkygravity (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Filesharing and piracy

Game of Thrones has undoubtedly been spread a lot through filesharing sites. So, I mentioned that under "Broadcast". Should it be mentioned elsewhere? Think twice. I guess the internet has been more important for the series than many tv-channels. /K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.15.242 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's a reliable source discussing distribution of this series via filesharing, and the distribution of this series via filesharing is unusual (it's the norm for most, these days), I don't see that it can be added anywhere (and I've already removed it before seeing that you opened a section on it here). Amalthea 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for discussing it. My source for the number is the current stats published on The Pirate Bay. I have no reason to doubt that the stats are fairly correct. This is just one filesharing site from one kind of network and the unintentional distribution of Game of Thrones through filesharing must be vast. It is an "internet hit", but I guess you demand a reliable surce saying just that? /K

Looking at the Pirate Bay's stats, compare the figures to others and report the conclusions would fall under original research, which is not allowed. The include this piece of data you should find a reputed independent source to claim that this particular way of distribution is notheworthy for GoT.--RR (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

TorrentFreak has some articles to refer to; [1] [2] [3] . One of their articles links to Forbes, which gives these articles; [4] [5] . 86.93.113.15 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

HBO ratings should be explained

"Although the first Sunday night screenings pulled in an average of just 2.5 million viewers during the first season, Game of Thrones’ average gross audience was 9.3 million viewers per episode. For the premium networks, what matters is that viewers are passionate enough to keep their subscriptions active...With no nervous widget-marketers to offend, characters on premium cable shows can swear, screw, and smash as many faces as they like"

• How Much Gold Is Game of Thrones Worth?How does HBO make money on expensive shows only 3 million people watch?. 87.164.99.134 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Season 1 vs. Season 2 characters

The Cast and characters refers to characters added to the principle cast in season 2. Varys seems out of place here. His character is fully introduced in season 1, as a conterpoint to Baelish. He has a large part in season one and is quite a familiar figure even before his conversations with Ned in the dark cells, just prior to Ned being executed. It is Varys who convinces Ned to admit to treason, and from memory their conversations also include a discussion of Varys' own goals and aspirations. Certainly his part seems to be as 'principle' as that of Baelish (no pun intended), or is 'principle cast' an industry term related to actors' pay grades or something? If so Conleth Hill got ripped off in season 1... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.131.51 (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cast in infobox

That list is ridiculously long and it is only going to get longer. It needs to be replaced with a link, either to another article on a subsection on this page with a colist table of cast instead, probably the same with the directors and writers. See The Simpsons or Saturday Night Live, both of which have been on a lot longer and had a lot more crew. You cannot list every director, every writer and every actor in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with hat you're saying, however, all the actors that have been credited as "starring" in any season should be included on the list, and not just a handful of them. all the other articles on Wikipedia include all the starring actors in the infobox, regardless of whether they have been starring for 1 or 10 seasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.208.130 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What other shows have this many cast members? It is impractical and unacceptable to have an infobox taking up half the article length and as far as I'm aware none of them are classed as starring roles, hence why they are only submitted for Best Supporting Whatever. There are no starring roles to be had, just regulars and guest stars. Saturday Night Live does not have every starring role in its infobox, it is impossible to do with a cast that large or this large. The only acceptable solution at the moment is:

A) Copy Saturday Night Live and put a link in there that leads to a section or another page that details the cast, or

B) Go with the only official source, HBO, which says who it, as an official source, credits as central roles and central crew.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of HBO shows actually have large casts like The Sopranos, True Blood... Also, I believe Desperate Housewives has a large cast. All of them have clearly stated which actors have been regulars and which recurring and for how long, and all those who have been/are regulars are put in the infobox. If you have seen an episode of the show, or just check out the articles about season 1 and season 2, you'll see that all the actors that I write are actors that have been or still are part of the main/regular cast... I have never written a name of an acotor that has been credited as having a recurring role in the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.208.130 (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so your point is...nothing. Credits are not based on what we see and who we decide is important and that doesn't resolve the problem of an excessively long cast list. If you could stop doing that while this discussion takes place I could stop warning you. I've offered two solutions including one official credit, HBO itself. You're blithely ignoring that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is that every cast member that has or is credited as starring should be included on the list (as it is for EVERY show's wikipedia page!) I do agree with you point of making a list like for The Simpsons and SNL. I mean, the thing is, you haven't even included Sean Bean, who was in the main role in season 1, which is why I believe yours is not a transparent list. My Wikipedia editing knowledge is limited, but I suppose you can make such a list (the main article about Game of Thrones cast members clearly points out the main characters and all those credited as starring) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.208.130 (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC) And I'm not even saying anything about who I think is important!. Sean Bean for example, has been credited as starring in season 1, which is why he has to be included on the list of actors who star on the show!. There are plenty of actors with star billing that you have omitted from your list! (the list of actors with star billing is in the article about the characters of Game of Thrones) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.208.130 (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't think there is harm in only lsting who is currently starring as long as it's made clear all of the stars elsewhere on the page. I think List of Characters isn't entirely sufficient but it will do for now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose, if you feel like it, you can list all the ones that are currently starring and put the link for List of characters in Game of Thrones on the bottom of that list, or something of that sort... Or maybe create a whole new article about Game of Thrones cast members. 85.40.208.130 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you could do it like List of The Simpsons cast members for the list and The Simpsons for the infobox. That True Blood list is just obscene, goes on forever. I don't watch the show but I can't imagine all of those are starring roles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So at the minute I've got something like this, which would go in a separate article. Not sure yet if it would just contain everyone and let people sort it or separate tables for regular cast and minor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

	Character	Season 1	Season 2	Season 3
		Daenerys Targaryen	Emilia Clarke	Emilia Clarke	Emilia Clarke
	Joffrey Baratheon	Jack Gleeson	Jack Gleeson	Jack Gleeson
	Bronn	Jerome Flynn	Jerome Flynn	Jerome Flynn
	Cersei Lannister	Lena Headey	Lena Headey	Lena Headey
	Arya Stark	Maisie Williams	Maisie Williams	Maisie Williams
	Tyrion Lannister	Peter Dinklage	Peter Dinklage	Peter Dinklage
	Eddard Stark	Sean Bean
	Stannis Baratheon		Stephen Dillane	Stephen Dillane
	Gregor Clegane	Conan Stevens	Ian Whyte

I am unsure of why the True Blood's length is so substantial but Game of Thrones cast is more comparable to the similar situation of The Wire and Rome (TV series) (which unlike all the previous shows mentioned, apart from The Sopranos, have both been completed). While Rome had two "main" protagonists (Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo) it would be entirely incorrect to state they were the only two characters worth mentioning (the "starring" list goes into the dozen, correctly so) The Wire and GoT have the shared fact of lacking a single person protagonist or group, and as such attempts to "trim" it down would be doing the shows and characters a disservice. They may appear to be unwieldy but that's what happens with a series of such a scale - amendments can be made but picking and choosing who is "notable enough" to be included in the infobox is going to cause more and more edit wars. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't picking and choosing, I used HBO's site which lists who it (being the maker) considers the principal characters. That said I am offering an alternative here above, an article that can contain the entire cast and a link in the infobox to that article as is done with Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons. A long unwieldy list of names in the infobox does not benefit anyone, it's just a long list of names with no indication of relevance or order and it is quite common for series with very large casts (and if you're a book reader you know it only grows) to link in the infobox to a section or article with the capacity to better inform the reader.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also while the Wire is a featured article, when it was made one i t looked like this with a substantially shorter list. If you don't place a guideline in place LIKE either a link to elsewhere or using sometihng official like HBO, then it comes down to personal opinion. If I choose to add Brienne's actress, who can argue that she shouldn't be there? And that goes on and on and on in something like this. True Blood is a good example of that and the current The Wire article, because all of them cannot be starring roles.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

An aside, why is the table not substantial? It is not a final product if that is what you think, that is not the entirety of the cast that will be in it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"the current The Wire article, because all of them cannot be starring roles." - this is factually incorrect, they all are and were starring credited otherwise the list would be even longer. The Wire is The Wire. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though that is probably something that could do with a link to a section or separate article about the cast instead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So does anyone have any suggestions/issues with the table? I'd rather have input before I spend however long it takes to populate it in full.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna add in my 19 cents and also state that ENTIRE (past and present) main cast should be listed in the infobox, just as many others shows have. One prominent example is LOST. Mromson (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Bush head controversy

This should be mentioned: [6], [7]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's in Fire_and_Blood_(Game_of_Thrones)#Production. A briefer mention might be made in the season article, but perhaps not necessarily in the series article.  Sandstein  12:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a major topic related to the series. It seems to have affected broadcast and distribution of the series, or at least S1, and seems relevant and notable enough to be mentioned here, in the critical reception or similar section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a minor topic blown out of proportion that relates to 1 in 20 episodes. If there are other controversies which could constitute a section together then it might get a mention there with a link to more info on the episode article, as it is, a minor note in the broadcast that one episode was removed from rotation and potentially the home media section, with one link to the episode article in question. The mention need be no longer than 1 sentence, the bulk of it should not be covered here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Inuit

the Wildlings wear fur side in and skin side out like the Inuit.[

It wasn't just the Inuit who did this, they all did. 174.89.29.65 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

UK Sky Atlantic (TV date).

From Sky.com Game of Thrones season 3 will air one day after the US date. 1st April 2013. Wasn't sure where to put this info in the article know. Govvy (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not this again

As we have discussed too many times to count, the country if origin of the show can not be made up as we go along. There must be proof. While there is no proof of British origin that has been cited, there is multiple citations of American origin. That is where we stand now--- so whoever keeps adding british to the country of origin lead, please stop vandalizing the page. If you have proof, we would all be happy to see it.--Brickcity55 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is this user ‎ 82.6.106.201. This is not a closed topic, but we cannot proceed to make changes without proof. If anyone has any questions about my position on this topic-- please read the above arguments.--Brickcity55 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"(TV series)"?

Why does this article need a disambiguator when Game of Thrones redirects here? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've now redirected it to A Game of Thrones (disambiguation), the main dab page, pending discussion here whether the TV series is the primary meaning of this title and we can drop the "(TV series)" suffix. It does seem likely.  Sandstein  09:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is the primary meaning of "Game of Thrones" without the "A" at the start - the albums and video games are clearly secondary - but not with it. If this is moved to Game of Thrones, it should have a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We will still have hatnotes at the top of both this page and the book page, right? A Game of Thrones would remain as the title of the book's article, I assume, but without a hatnote specifically referring to the book in this article, and a hatnote specifically referring to the TV series in the book's article, that is awkward. We would have two articles dealing with similar subject-matter, one derivative of the other, distinguished only by an indefinite article -- I'm not fond of that prospect. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to have agreement that the disambiguating brackets can be dropped. I'll perform the move.  Sandstein  21:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this article has a fundamental NPOV problem. Why is it that there is no plot synopsis that is specific to the show? It seems like the main contributers to this article took it upon themselves to strategically get editors to make their way over to the Synopsis of A Song of Ice and Fire article. The plot sections over at the List of Game of Thrones episodes suffer from the same tradeoffs. It appears (not saying that this is fact; not making an accusation; assuming good faith) that the editors here consider it their duty to convert fans of the show into fans of the novel via the link to the novels.

Thoughts? If I were to suggest we add a plot summary that is specific to the tv show, would anyone object? There's no reason we couldn't keep the links to the articles about the novel, but it's wrong to deprive people of information. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Charles35 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You should assume good faith rather than somebody's ill intent. Also, I don't see how the issue of a plot summary is related to any "point of view". I suppose nobody so far bothered to write a plot summary because the plot of the series follows the novels rather closely so far, though it might be interesting to summarize the principal differences if there are sources for those. So, I suppose it's in the interest of economy of writing not to write a plot summary that would be mostly redundant to that of the novels.  Sandstein  09:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than diverting editors I think interested people would want to know about the original as well as similar works to follow on. So I'm somewhat missing the Related works section. For example it's very similar to the fight over the Throne of Jade in Romance of the Three Kingdoms or the schemes in War and Peace. Of course being a later work and having the modern access it wouldn't be surprising if A Song of Ice and Fire combines or has similar ideas and plots from all kinds of literature around the world. Some restrain in referring must be put in place. Mightyname (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This sort of comparison to other works (if sourced to reliable sources) is better suited to the articles about the novels, from which the series derives.  Sandstein  13:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a plot summary of the show. Not just because the show obviously does not directly follow the novel and there are differences, but also because it would be nice to be able to discern what happened in which season. I wonder why pretty much every other Grammy and Emmy award nominated and won show has a detailed plot summary and this happens to have just a couple links to the novel. At the same time, at the bottom of the article, you've got a paragraph detailing how the show is a "gateway drug to fantasy fan culture".

So I will repeat, does anyone object to adding a plot summary? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

CfD discussion

Editors may be interested in the related discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 29#Game of Thrones (TV series).  Sandstein  19:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

S4 article creation discussion

Editors might be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:Game of Thrones (season 4)#Created too early?.  Sandstein  14:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Folks

Hello, Being an editors apart of the Game of Thrones series, can you please come and join the discussion over on Talk:List of Game of Thrones characters re Gendry and his place on the characters listings that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com copyvio of this article

This is just to note that the examiner.com article by "Joann Scheffler, Cincinnati Pop Culture Examiner" at <examiner com/article/game-of-thrones-actor-peter-dinklage-doesn-t-believe-he-is-a-sex-symbol> (not linked because blacklist) is a copyright violation of the lead of this article. Is this worth complaining about?  Sandstein  12:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not on this talk page, at least. I'd try Wikipedia:Village pump if I were you.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

External links

What exactly is the problem with this link?

• Authors@Google: George R.R. Martin (video, 91:49 min)

--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

External links normally are a bare minimum (the official sites, major sites about the show, etc.). Including one interview link means that there would be no reason not to have many of them. The link can be used as a reference if there is a specific point it is in reference to, but I don't think it is appropriate as a per WP:EL. Caidh (talk)

Actually I'm rather familiar with WP:EL (and it's problems). Currently we do not have long list that we would require use to block additional links in an effort to avoid linkspam. The interview in question here is not just any interview but a long in depth interview with the series principal author and advisor and as such qualifies under WP:ELYES point 3. But even if one see that differently the link is certainly more appropriate than all current links (fan and tv sites) except the official HBO site and maybe the IMDB link (linking IMDB has become a standards of sorts in practice).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be in the external links section. It's essentially a big chunk of linear content with no description of what it is even about. Suitable as a reference perhaps, but not as an additional resource for people who want more resources about the series as a whole.  Sandstein  16:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A more detailed description can be added, if that is really a problem (currently it is simply the official title of the event & broadcast). Otherwise I can't really fathom how detailed interview on the series, its development and characters with the principal author of series is not a "additional resource for people who want more resources about the series as a whole." Such a claim makes no sense at all to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I support the EL inclusion of this licensed interview with the author about the series. I also favor including content from this source (cited) in the article body, now, or later, at which point it can be removed from EL. Either way, this source should remain tied to the article, not split from it. --Lexein (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced "Critical response" section

I removed several quotes from the "Critical response"-section (I did not remove the references to the sources, though), with the rationale that:

"There's no need to use 50% of the "Critical response" section to quote statements from critics who didn't like the depiction of sex in the series. Especially when the amount of criticism is relatively minor compared to the positive response to the series"

These changes were later undone by Caidh, and he wrote:

"Restore properly cited content - if you disagree with it - take it up in the talk page"

I'm afraid Caidh misunderstood the reasons for the removal of the quotes: Yes, the content is properly cited, but that's not the point, the point is that there's no need to quote/paraphrase all those sources. I (or someone else) could add properly cited content all day, but the real issue is this: Is it really necessary to add all those quotes? Can they be paraphrased in a shorter sentence? Does it paint a balanced picture of how the critics have responded to the series? As it stands now, I'd say that it does not paint a balanced picture, and it's the reason why I removed the quotes in the first place, something I made pretty clear in my original edit.

I propose that at least some of the quotes are removed, or that the quotes are replaced by a shorter statement which is representative for the quotes. All the references can/should be left intact, though.

HaiDeaf (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The sex/nudity issue comes up so often in reviews that it merits its own paragraph, especially considering that the rest of the article (justifiedly) reflects the praise the series receives in all other respects. The selection of critics now quoted all touch on different aspects of the series's issues with sex and nudity, so I don't immediately see how it could be usefully condensed without losing information.  Sandstein  10:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph which is there now may not be excessive seen on its own. But I do think HaiDeaf has a point, that there are WP:DUEWEIGHT problems with the way the "critical response" section looks now. As it is now, criticism of the explicit nature for the show fills almost half of the "critical response"-section, which would imply to readers that half of all critical response there has been to the show has been negative criticism of its explicitness. This is clearly not accurate. To correct this we gotta either find more content for other kinds of critical reactions to the show, or find a way to prune the criticisms of depiction of sex. I think the former option would be best for the article, given that, as I have said, I don't think the paragraph is excessive seen on its own.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the information in the critical response is important since it shows a common criticism. I think rather than removing what is there, other reviews/criticism from other angles should be added. That will help prevent it from other parts having undue weight. Caidh (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for example, someone could summarize the S3 reviews from Metacritic. Or, and this would mean more work, we could summarize all criticism by topic (casting, cinematography, writing etc.)  Sandstein  14:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Freeloader for supporting my view on the balancing/undue weight issue. Presenting different viewpoints from critics in a representative manner is very important, I think. It also makes common sense, and it's good to see that Wikipedia has guidelines/recommendations on this particular topic.

I still think that the sex/nudity paragraph is too excessive/elaborate, and I disagree that it can't be condensed without losing information. Here's an example:

"... the nude scenes appeared to be aimed mainly at titillating heterosexual men, right down to the Brazilian waxes sported by the women in the series's faux-medieval setting,"

The last part of this statement (starting with "right down to...") is not necessary to paraphrase, and you don't lose important information by pruning it. You could also argue that the criticism from Holmes and Ryan is very similar ("presented women naked, rather than men, and added that the excess of 'random boobage'...").

However, I agree that adding more positive responses to balance out the significant portion of negative responses, is a practical solution, although it requires a bit more work. There doesn't seem to be any summary of the critical responses to S3 (which has been very positive, something that the Metacritic rating also clearly indicates), so I will try to do this later.

I also think it's worth mentioning that all the articles cited above (regarding sex/nudity) were written during S2. There has been a lot less "explicit"/"non-narrative" nudity in S3 (it seems to me that they've deliberately chosen to tone it down a bit), and this may explain why there has apparently been less negative criticism directed towards S3 so far (even the Podrick "sex god"-sequence was implicit, and it had a humorous twist). Another thing is that the depiction of sex/nudity has not been a major issue here in Europe, and if you look at the cited articles above, they're all American. However, the section doesn't mention anything about this difference.

HaiDeaf (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Brazilian waxes observation is interesting and should be retained, I think: that the series uses 20th-century pubic hair fashions which appear rather out of place in a medieval world illustrates strikingly how it uses female nudity for mostly decorative (rather than dramatic) purposes. We shouldn't mention anything about a US/EU difference in approaching the sex issue unless we have reliable sources that tell us about such a difference. Otherwise, it would be original research to assume such a difference, and specifically inadmissible synthesis by implying that cultural differences may be behind it. My intuitive assessment, based on what I've read, is that there's unlikely to be such a difference. That's because the critical objections to GoT's approach to sex and nudity do not concern the display of sex and nudity as such, but rather that it is used frequently only as titillation, apparently in order to pander to a young, male audience, and in a manner that does not contribute to the story and is demeaning to women. (For instance, Emilia Clarke's nude scene at the end of S1 hasn't been criticized by anybody, because it is in fact integral to the narrative.) These are not issues about which critics on both sides of the Atlantic tend to have markedly different views.  Sandstein  21:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein wrote: "Actually, the Brazilian waxes observation is interesting and should be retained, I think ..."

Interesting yes, but not really necessary, IMO, given the relatively long paragraph in relation to the rest of the section.

"We shouldn't mention anything about a US/EU difference in approaching the sex issue unless we have reliable sources that tell us about such a difference ... My intuitive assessment, based on what I've read, is that there's unlikely to be such a difference."

I agree about the OR-part (after all, it's policy), so I'm not going to do anything about this until I find some reliable sources, but I disagree about the last statement. I've read many GoT reviews since S1, and my impression is that European critics in general do not have the same issues with sex/nudity in the show as their US counterparts.

"That's because the critical objections to GoT's approach to sex and nudity do not concern the display of sex and nudity as such, ..."

But my point is that European critics in general do not find the sex to be just "demeaning" to women, or just "titillating" to the same extent as in the US. US critics use the term "titillating" as if it was only a bad word. And I'm actually one of those people who criticised the sex/nudity in the first two seasons, not because of the (explicit) nudity/sex itself (I don't have a problem with explicit depiction of sex or violence, per se), but simply because I didn't feel that the sex scenes worked in terms of arousing the viewer (even though I'm a male), and that the "sexposition" scenes seemed rather awkward and corny at times. One of the better sex scenes in the first seasons were those in which the woman was indeed demeaned or raped, but it seems that more US critics saw this in a purely negative light, without looking at it in a narrative context and what it told you about the characters and the world they lived in (for example, the scenes involving Theon tells you that he has a certain appetite for sex, and that he doesn't have much respect for women). Also remember that the characters in this show live in another time where women didn't have the same rights or live on the same terms as men. In the book, this difference is made even clearer.

"(For instance, Emilia Clarke's nude scene at the end of S1 hasn't been criticized by anybody, because it is in fact integral to the narrative.)"

It has indeed been criticized, but for various reasons. One of them is that the scene in the show is depicted as a rape scene, but in the book it's a bit more nuanced. But even then, I don't think it was worth criticizing it. It felt more natural that a "barbarian" like Drogo would not go easy on her. Anyway, all this is a bit off-topic, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea to start a longer discussion about it here.

HaiDeaf (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Emilia Clarke should have a paragraph to herself. File:SoleteRayosÑajo.gif Dark Unicorn 23:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've presented arguments for shortening the sex/nudity paragraph a little bit, so unless somebody has any major objections, I will replace the quotes from Holmes and Ryan with a single statement. I will also add some more positive reactions from critics, due to the balancing issues we've talked about. HaiDeaf (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please; be WP:BOLD.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)