Talk:Game of Thrones season 1

Infobox television

(copied from elsewhere )

Regarding your revert: Currently the infobox reads "No. of episodes: 6", which at the very least is misleading, as evident by previous changes in this article and in those of most other current TV series. Yes, the documentation of {{Infobox television}} (a different template!) asks to only list aired episodes. However, the documentation already makes provisions to also show number of produced episodes in case of a canceled series, so I don't think that whoever wrote this text necessarily demanded to ever only list the number or released episodes (which, in the case of Game of Thrones, is actually 7, since one additional episode was made available to subscribers on various Internet portals) -- not to mention that unless there's a community consensus for only listing aired episodes, the comment in the documentation doesn't carry much weight.
I see only advantages in extending the information to list both released and produced episodes, as I explained in the edit summary when I made the edit, as long as reliable sources can back it up. Why do you think it's bad to be explicit there?
Amalthea 20:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply because this is the accepted use of the "no of episodes" parameter in every TV show article I've seen. The text of the article clearly and explicitly explains how many episodes are planned, even has titles for them. But you're trying to shoehorn extra information into the infobox that it makes no provision for. I looked at the template page and this issue has been discussed there (most recently, Template_talk:Infobox_television#Dates_in_infobox) and that is the consensus (not really a "different template", as they share most parameters). The "cancelled show" provision obviously does not apply, probably in that case the episodes have been or will be released on DVD, or in some other format. In that case the show's run has finished, as has production, neither of which is true for GoT. Aside from that, I can see people updating "number produced" every time a set report indicates an episode is being filmed. This would create a lot of activity all to list episodes a few weeks in advance, and inevitably many times this information would end up being wrong or changed. I think that stuff can be left to fan sites. Barsoomian (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Link for Sophie Turner in Main Cast List

Link is wrong, as it takes the reader to the page for Australian model Sophie Turner, rather than the actress who plays Sansa Stark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.158.222 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Bush head controversy

This should be mentioned; it affected the entire season DVD shipments: [1], [2]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Talk:Game of Thrones (TV series)#Bush head controversy.  Sandstein  12:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers

Are people only leaving stubs in the episode list because they do not want to leave spoilers now? IPWAI (talk)

Accents

So all of the characters have British accents? Why do many of them have Yorkshire (or at least some kind of indeterminate Northern English) accents? I think this is a notable aspect of the programme that should be mentioned. Does anyone have a source? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Shown vs. Broadcast?

Since the show has only ever appeared on HBO in the U.S., has it ever been "broadcast"? I would reserve that term for over-the-airwaves-to-viewers traditional television. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"Broadcast" means to "transmit a programme or some information by radio or television". The term is valid. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Game of Thrones (season 1). 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/20160821120407/http://gawker.com/what-is-going-on-with-the-accents-in-game-of-thrones-485816507 to http://gawker.com/what-is-going-on-with-the-accents-in-game-of-thrones-485816507
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817123724/http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-ofmdfm/news-ofmdfm-210409-hbo-to-film.htm to http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-ofmdfm/news-ofmdfm-210409-hbo-to-film.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418122523/http://www.aoltv.com/2011/02/02/game-of-thrones/ to http://www.aoltv.com/2011/02/02/game-of-thrones/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.amazon.co.uk/Game-Thrones-Season-1-DVD/dp/B004LRO176
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.jbhifi.com.au/movies-tv-shows/movies-tv-shows-on-sale/tv-fantasy/game-of-thrones-season-1/291196/

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) 15:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Game of Thrones (season 1). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20161804%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817123724/http://grrm.livejournal.com/95840.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/95840.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817123724/http://grrm.livejournal.com/109392.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/109392.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160821120407/http://grrm.livejournal.com/153995.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/153995.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307150640/http://grrm.livejournal.com/164794.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/164794.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20481542%2C00.html

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) 12:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017

Under Episode 1, "Winter Is Coming," one piece of information is incorrect.

"Eddard's youngest son, Brandon, climbs a tower" should read "Eddard's second youngest son, Brandon, climbs a tower".

Rickon Stark is Eddard's youngest son. His older brother is Brandon. Ethannat (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ethannat:  Done I've replaced "youngest" with "10-year-old". -   Radiphus   01:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Actors names in the plot summary

Moved here from: User talk:Keivan.f‎ § ‎Mass changes to GoT articles.

Per WP:FAIT, your edits to multiple Game of Thrones articles to make them conform to a TV MOS change not discussed within the project are inappropriate. I've reverted you on Season 1, because that article passed FLC with those actor names embedded. However, what is most appropriate is for you to undo all your changes, rather than others' having to clean up. Once you've successfully rolled back your edits, please start a discussion in a relevant place before making large numbers of disputed edits.

Just because something has been inserted into the MOS does not mean it's uncontroversial: most editors don't read the MOS and are unaware of changes proposed or implemented by a small group of MOS-interested Wikipedians until an unsuspecting user like yourself assumes that implementing mass changes would be uncontroversial. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This should have initially been posted on the article's talk page, not Keivan.f's personal talk page. Anyways, since you've started it here...

Given that Keivan.f removed it once and I removed it once, and you've reverted twice, I really don't think that you're in the position to be accusing others of edit-warring. You stated that Featured Content trumps LOCALCONSENSUS at a MOS - this is not a local consensus, this is a guideline, which you then tried to force your opinion on by removing the content you disagreed with in said guideline. Very poor faith on your part there.

Clearly there had been a discussion to implement WP:TVCAST; in fact, there was a recent discussion that overhauled it with updated content, so it is the reviewing editor's fault that they were not aware that the article did not comply with the guidelines. Implementing it is not Keivan.f's fault. Besids, WP:FAIT is an information page, not a guideline or policy.

Simply because the article has been promoted to a featured article, that does not mean that edits and guidelines cannot be implemented, unless you would care to point me in the direction that says it does, to an actual guideline or policy? And as I stated in my edit summary, the inclusion or exclusion of the names of the actors were not brought up in any of the reviews for the article - that includes the one peer review, the two Featured Article reviews, as well as the Good Article review. This means that you have no consensus to revert the removal; I recommend you start gaining that as soon as possible. -- Alex^TW 06:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that I have to ask for a permission when I'm doing something that is a part of our guidelines. By the way it seems that, apparently, you're the only one who's opposing these changes. It seems that IVORK and AlexTheWhovian also share my opinion. By the way, it's also possible to find an error on a featured article, and such errors have to be corrected. I haven't read anything about ignoring errors or mistakes on featured or good articles merely because they're prompted to a higher level of quality. In conclusion, I only followed the guidelines and policies. If the users wish to oppose the my changes, then the guidelines should be challenged as well, though it has already been pointed out that there was a recent consensus to maintain them. Keivan.f^Talk 07:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I will not be responding here, as this is not a proper venue to discuss either the MOS, the preference of the ASoIaF Wikiproject participants, or the user conduct in question. AlexTheWhovian has taken exception to me placing discussions in appropriate places. I'll note that I am not "dodging" anything, but have started three separate discussions, each in the relevant venue. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Game of Thrones (season 1). 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/20161225144925/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/98217/melanoma-charity-is-helped-by-tv-star to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/98217/melanoma-charity-is-helped-by-tv-star

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) 14:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New episode images

Radiphus has proposed changing the images by WP:BOLD edits in the infoboxes on most of the episodes in this season to the following:

• Episode 1: File:Game of Thrones S01E01 - Winter is Coming.png
• Episode 3: File:Game of Thrones S01E03 - Lord Snow.png
• Episode 5: File:Game of Thrones S01E05 - The Wolf and the Lion.png
• Episode 6: File:Game of Thrones S01E06 - A Golden Crown.png
• Episode 7: File:Game of Thrones S01E07 - You Win or You Die.png
• Episode 8: File:Game of Thrones S01E08 - The Pointy End.png
• Episode 9: File:Game of Thrones S01E09 - Baelor.png

Radiphus had also made changes to the other episodes in the season, but has seemed to have gone back on those, but has provided images which he claims are better quality (see File:Game of Thrones S01E02 - The Kingsroad.png, File:Game of Thrones S01E04 - Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things.png and File:Game of Thrones S01E10 - Fire and Blood.png). Images should stay as the WP:STATUSQUO until the consensus for that particular image is decided on. TedEdwards 20:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Pinging TAnthony on discussion. TedEdwards 20:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to approach this; I'm fine with some changes, indifferent to others. TedEdwards and I have explained at user talk:Radiphus#Images why more specific reasoning than that the image "captures an important moment in the episode" would help other editors understand why the change was made. The situation has sort of devolved. I don't think the season 1 images have been discussed as much as some in later seasons, and I think I agree with Radiphus that, for example, an image of Ned's actual execution in "Baelor" might be more impactful/appropriate than the current image of Arya watching it. This was just a messy way to do it.— TAnthony^Talk 22:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: as the user who both reverted my edits and started this discussion, would you like to tell us what is it that you didn't like about these images? -- Radiphus 02:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm with TAnthony--some changes are good, others not so good, but proposing them on the talk page, even concurrently with the changes, would not have hurt at all. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Radiphus:The problem with images 1, 5 and 7 is feel there're a different image of the same thing to the previous image, so changing them would be redundant in my opinion. For episode 3 I don't feel as if the stranguling is impactful to that episode and although it does show Viserys losing control of the Dothraki, the true impact isn't really felt until episode 6 IMO. A photo of Ned entering the small council for the first time, as a suggestion, might work better for episode 3, as it instantly has a large impact on the episode IMO, as it's the first sight of Westerosi politics and this hypothetical image shows a developed storyline, rather than Viserys and the Dothraki, which is only the start of that storyline. Episode 6, while the hunting trip obviously leads the the death of a major character, why not show the actual death of a major character, in fact the first major death in the series? I do like your image for episodes 8 and 9, because for 8 I think your image works as it shows the actual fight, not the build up, to the fight that will kill Drogo and on 9 I think it works as it shows the event, not Arya's reaction. Hope this helps. Also, please don't delete the images, as 8 and 9 I think the articles could do with having, and if editors disagree with me and like the images I don't like so much, I want them to be able so achieve a consensus to put them in, even if I think the old images are better. TedEdwards 16:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In the image i have uploaded for the first episode, we can see more things that are happening in the scene. The image that is currently being used might be good for the "Ned Stark" character article, but it doesn't really say much about the episode. In the image for the fifth episode, although we can't see the Lannister soldiers surrounding them, we can see more clearly the main actors that are involved in the scene. In the image for the seventh episode, we are again able to see the characters more clearly. In the image for the third episode, i believe Viserys losing control of the Dothraki (at the moment he was the main challenger to the Iron Throne) is more impactful than Arya fencing with Syrio. Other options for the episode include Jon training at the Wall (same thing as Arya), and Ned choking Littlefinger. Though i believe the image i've chosen for the sixth episode is better, one other option i could consider is Tyrion during his trial in the Vale. I am not the one to decide if these images will be deleted, as they are currently failing non-free content criteria #7. -- Radiphus 17:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Radiphus:Whilst I think some of the images should be changed to your proposals, I'm wondering why you think all the images need to be changed, it could seem you're changing them for the sake of changing them. However, I think the current image of episode 3 is not the best image, but I am more partial to the image of Ned choking Littlefinger, as it's Littlefinger's first episode, and I think the plotline of Jon Arryn's murder is more impactful at that point than the Dothraki. I suppose the changes to 1, 5 and 7 wouldn't be problematic, as long as the caption for 1 stated which character was Ned, but for 6, the only necessary change I think would be an improvment in quality, I don't think we need to use the HBO website to find a new image. As for 2, 4 and 10, I will take a closer look on quality improvement, and get back to you on that. TedEdwards 18:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I've looked at them side by side, I can notice a difference in quality, so I don't reckon there will be a problem in putting them in. I reckon "See [[Talk:Game of Thrones (season 1)#New episode images]]" in the summary box would do as an explanation. TedEdwards 18:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you think all the images need to be changed, it could seem you're changing them for the sake of changing them.

I want to change the images in most episode articles of the series (could be all of them) as their quality is bad, the file names and aspect ratio is inconsistent and the HBO gallery is a better source to get professional/promotional images, which guarantees they best represent the episode, as opposed to a screenshot taken by a random user. -- Radiphus 19:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered/ is it possible to use photos from secondary sources? This website (Rolling stone) seems to have a good quality photo that I think would work for episode. Just something that could be considered. Btw do you want me to change the images for 2, 4 and 10 for the reason I've given above. TedEdwards 21:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Which image are you referring to from Rolling Stone? It's up to you at this point to decide when consensus has been reached for any of these images. I am not planning to restore any of them myself. -- Radiphus 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In regard to rolling stone, I'm refering to the first one you'll see (which is of Drogo). In regard to the images, I do not know the procedure for removing deletion tags, since I've never really dealt with files, so I am not the person to deal with that, maybe TAnthony is better placed to do it. However, I think that it's OK to change the pictures on 2, 4, 8, 9 and 10 as I think no editor has a problem with those ones now. In regard to 1, 5 and 7, I am neutral, another editor's input before changing those would probably be ideal. I would still like discussion for 3 and 6, but I think you have explained why the images should be changed, which is what me and TAnthony were trying to get you do, so no problems there. TedEdwards 23:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Any unused non-free images will be tagged by a bot for deletion in 7 days even if I remove the current tags, so we basically have until Tues 1/16/18 to sort this out. I think if this discussion can settle on an image for each of the 7 articles we're talking about, that's consensus enough for me. By the way, I have file mover privileges so I can rename any files that may be poorly named, without leaving redirects.— TAnthony^Talk 23:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

To settle on the images, it would be useful if everyone could point out the ones they have a problem with. Jclemens said that some of the images are "not so good" and i would like them to be more specific. TedEdwards has not decided on the images 3 and 6. How about you TAnthony? You said you are "indifferent" to some changes. Do we need to discuss about them as well, and do you have an opinion about the images 3 and 6? Thank you. -- Radiphus 02:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally believe the Rolling Stone image is not a good choise, most importantly because we can not see Viserys' face. The quality is also comparably bad as this is a screenshot that's been used as a youtube thumbnail (direct link to image). Changing the images can wait, as i would first like to see if there will be any more objections raised. -- Radiphus 23:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So during the initial mass replacement, I believe I reverted two changes that I totally objected to (Ep. 2 and 10). I was either fine with or indifferent enough to the rest, and figured I'd let others weigh in. To help this discussion, I just put the images into a table (below) where we can say yes or no to each to get an idea where we stand. I'm not actually pushing to change any in particular, but my Nos are images I don't think are good/appropriate, my Yeses are those I think would be good replacements, and the Maybes are those for which I don't have a preference. Let me know if anyone has trouble figuring out the table or how to add to it.— TAnthony^Talk 03:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that the reduced quality is intentional and was carried out per the NFCC. You and I may not agree with the necessity or appropriateness of what was done, but it's my experience that arguing against NFCC partisans is essentially an unwinnable debate. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? In case you are, i should make myself clear. First of all there is no reason to say things like "you will not win an arguement against me". This creates unnecessary animosity, and i assure you i am a committed follower of the sites policies and guidelines. Second, i believe you are referring to WP:NFCCP #3b which states Low- rather than high-resolution is used. Quality and resolution are two different things. As WP:IMAGERES explains the resolution should generally be no higher than 100,000 pixels. The images i have uploaded have been resized to 422 x 237, (100,014 pixels) and this was calculated using this tool. If i uploaded a non-free image with 1280 x 720 resolution, a bot would reduce it to 422 x 237 in order to comply with the NFCC. -- Radiphus 03:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sort of a vote to see where we stand

Voting table
The following poll is closed. Please do not modify it.
Image Acceptable replacement? TAnthony Jclemens TedEdwards Radiphus Episode 1: File:Game of Thrones S01E01 - Winter is Coming.png Yes Yes Neutral Yes Episode 3: File:Game of Thrones S01E03 - Lord Snow.png No No No Yes Episode 5: File:Game of Thrones S01E05 - The Wolf and the Lion.png Yes Yes Neutral Yes Episode 6: File:Game of Thrones S01E06 - A Golden Crown.png No No No Maybe Episode 7: File:Game of Thrones S01E07 - You Win or You Die.png Yes Yes Neutral Yes Episode 8: File:Game of Thrones S01E08 - The Pointy End.png Maybe Maybe Yes Yes Episode 9: File:Game of Thrones S01E09 - Baelor.png Yes Yes Yes Yes Episode 3 Option 1: Jon training at the Wall. Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Option 2: Jaime encounters Ned in the throne room. No No Maybe No Option 3: Arya training with Syrio. No Maybe No No Option 4: Viserys getting choked by a Dothraki warrior. No Maybe No Yes Option 5: Varys being Varys... No No No No Option 6: Ned pushes Littlefinger up against a wall outside the brothel. No Yes Yes Maybe Option 7: Bran hears stories from the Old Nan. No No No No Episode 6 Option 1: Khal Drogo ready to "crown" Viserys. Yes Maybe Yes Maybe Option 2: Tyrion's trial. Maybe No No Maybe Option 3: Arya and Syrio. No No No No Option 4: Tyrion during his trial. No No No No Option 5: King Robert on a hunt. No Maybe No Yes Option 6: A wildling threatens Bran. No No No No Option 7: Bran riding a horse. No No No No Option 8: Ros leaving for King's Landing. No No Definitely no No Option 9: Viserys "crowned" by Khal Drogo. Maybe Maybe Maybe Notes

I do think a "better" image of Viserys being crowned could be used for Ep. 6. There are some like this or this, though they may be too grisly.— TAnthony^Talk 03:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There clearly seems to be a problem with the images 3 and 6. When you vote no/maybe are you saying that you want to keep the image that is currently being used in the articles? Do you believe that these images do not best represent the episodes or might there be other reasons why you voted no/maybe? Which scenes do you think are the ones that should be depicted in these two episodes? TAnthony said "Viserys being crowned could be used for Ep. 6" - is this image (direct link) good? -- Radiphus 03:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my thinking is we can change any images we agree on right away, and then discuss the rest ... or not. For my nos and maybes: I do not like the newly suggested image for the article, but I'm not necessarily attached to the current one. Your latest Ep. 6 suggestion seems better than the current image, hopefully it would still be as easy to see what's going on when it is reduced to proper proportions.— TAnthony^Talk 15:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Radiphus Your latest image for The Golden Crown I could live with i.e. I'm neutral. Also I think "no" in the vote means "I don't like the image you're proposing" not necessarily meaning the image on the article shouldn't be changed , and "maybe" means "I don't mind whether we keep the old image or put a new one in". TedEdwards 17:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to ensure you realise, these votes should not be "on gets most votes, therefore that one is the consensus", they should only be a method of finding out what editors think. I've added an image discussed a few lines up. TedEdwards 20:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the idea was to see what we can readily agree upon, and then get into debating the other ones as necessary.— TAnthony^Talk 21:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jclemens: when you have the time, please fill in the remaining cells in your column, so it will become more clear which images we can discuss about. -- Radiphus 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

For episode 3, since consensus looks like it might be hard to achieve, a photo of Ned with his Hand's badge in sight, as he got that in that episode, might work. Also, I'll change for episodes 2, 4 and 10 in about 18 hours since I don't think there's a problem with doing that. Please object if you want. TedEdwards 22:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe we should wait for 3 more days and then change all the images. I don't know if Jclemens intends to participate any more in this discussion, but as i see it the candidates for episode 3 are options 1 and 6, while the candidates for episode 6 are options 1 and 2. Regarding episode 3, i believe option 1 is better than option 6, which lacks context and despite the fact that it depicts more main characters of the show, it does not say much about the episode. Jon's name is also in the title of the episode, so this is another reason. Do you have any objections to that TedEdwards? Regarding episode 6, the title of the episode is the only reason why i am not objecting to option 1, despite the image being of comparably poor quality. TedEdwards and TAnthony, i have added another option for episode 6, which i prefer compared to option 1, please vote on that as well. -- Radiphus 20:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed my mind slightly on the image of Jon Snow, as the episode is named after him, but I don't think the photo is that good. However, my slight concern with the new proposal for episode 6 is that it might be a bit grisly for some readers, I mean it's not the worst on that front, but a photo just before the gold is actually poured could be preferable. TedEdwards 21:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the image better captures the "crowning" scene in a less sickening way compared to TAnthony's images. My guess is that this wouldn't be a controversial change, though we could always have it changed to option 1 the moment a reader or an editor expresses their disapproval. -- Radiphus 22:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As there were no objections to changing the images for 2, 4 and 10, I've changed them to Radiphus's ones. TedEdwards 14:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards, TAnthony, and Jclemens: It seems like everyone has lost interest in this discussion. Does anyone disagree at this point with using the files i have uploaded for episodes 1,5,7,8,9 and options 1 and 9 for episodes 3 and 6 respectively? -- Radiphus 04:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Radiphus:A consensus must be drawn up, and it has to be a bit more than everyone not disagreeing with you. I would personally ensure keep the images you suggested for episodes 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 on a website off Wikipedia so they can be accessed after tommorow when they're deleted (and create links to them on this talk page) and the discussion can be restarted another time. TedEdwards 17:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: This has been a waste of time. It's obvious that users do not think they need to participate in such discussion and this will not change in the future. Most users have been in favor of using the images 1,5,7,8,9. Also, votes for the first options for both episodes 3 and 6 have been neutral to positive, so they will also replace the terrible images that are currently being used. -- Radiphus 18:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you changed the image for episode 9, and for episode 6 to option 1 (if you did it if you wanted to), as everyone seems to like the image for episode 9 and only you have appear to have slight reservations for option 1 for episode 6 (i.e. it's not your favourite), but please see WP:WIKINOTVOTE. Voting can be used to achieve consensus, but most votes does not make consensus. For episodes 1, 5 and 7, I would be happy for you to change them so consider them unaminously accepted. However consensus has not be achieved for episodes 8 (as TAnthony and JClemens possibly have reservations, so don't change it until consensus has been achieved. I would ask for the other two editors inputs on their talk pages first. Consensus for episode 3 is nowhere near, so don't change anything there please. TedEdwards 19:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

TAnthony said we can change any images we agree on right away and that the Maybes are those for which I don't have a preference so there are no reservations there. The voting results is the only thing we have in this completely unnecessary discussion with no other participants or arguements being made. TAnthony also said in my talk page I see nothing wrong, in general, with being bold and changing an image without starting a discussion first. I have pinged both him and Jclemens numerous times and they will not respond. A decisison has to be made at some point and this is now. -- Radiphus 19:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct cast order

So, I have painstakingly went through each and every episode per season to make sure the cast order is correct because others have been changing it. The order is now complete. It also follows Wikipedia's cast order guidelines precisely. For a very long time, this has not been the case, as Aidan Gillen was listed next to Iain Glen's name, when, according to Wikipedia, his name should have gone last. What do you think? I don't see any reason to change it from this point. — Branjsmith94 02:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Emilia Clarke-Emmys 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox cast

Is there really a reasonable purpose for not having the cast in the infobox just because it's Game of Thrones? Other shows have seasons with much longer casts and they are consistently listed in their respective infoboxes. For now, I'm compensated for this until someone can give a reasonable justification for there not to be an infobox cast list. — Branjsmith94 14:17, 11 September 2022 (EST)

Compensated for this? Odd wording aside, I have no objections. Jclemens (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that was supposed to read "I've compensated for this." Branjsmith94 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)