Talk:List of Game of Thrones episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Referencing Westeros.org

I'm going to be bold and include as a reference information from Westeros.org. I know that in the past some people has criticized sourcing to this site on the grounds that they are fan pages. But at this point we know that they have been sent the first six episodes by HBO, so they have seen the episodes and their information is reliable. I believe their status is the one of a reputed website specialized in the TV series. Fyrthermore, westeros.org is owned by Elio Garcia, who is co-authoring a book with George R.R. Martin himself, so his reports should not be dismissed as fancruft.--RR (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is The Futon Critic a reliable source?

I'm just wondering whether The Futon Critic can be used as an appropriate reference; the site itself seems to show no source for its information, and as it is not an official HBO site I'm not sure of its accuracy. I'm sure I've read somewhere that HBO said that there would be no episode shown on Memorial Day weekend; until the dates have been officially confirmed, should the later episodes not show an unknown original air date? Shrimptoast (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Futon Critic receives its information directly from the networks. It is as reliable a source as any other and is widely used across Wikipedia. The information may change as the networks update their schedules, but those changes will be reflected on Futon. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Redundant article

With only one season made and not yet complete, this page is totally redundant. It should not have been created until Season 2 was at least close to airing. All it does is waste time now when people click through to this and then have to click again to get the real information at Game of Thrones (season 1). For that matter, with only 10 episodes per season, you could comfortably put at least two or three seasons on the same page before having to split them and only then would this page be needed. I'm tempted to AfD, or just redirect it. Am I wrong? Barsoomian (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's Game of Thrones (season 1) that's redundant. The little relevant info is just a duplicate of the main article and the episode list should be moved back here. Creation of articles usually goes; main article → episode list → season article. In this case the season article is premature. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I just thought that the season article has more content now (basically episode summaries). I thought it might be easier to get rid of this one as it now has nothing worth keeping. But if you think you can get away with merging them here, that would be the best option, for at least the next year. I'll do it and see what happens. Barsoomian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Short summaries in the episode list

I think the summaries should be short and simple to understand. There's no need to suddenly put the entire plot of that episode in the episodes list when you can just put it in the episode article itself. Here are some examples of episodes list articles that keep the summary short and simple while the plot of the episode is written in the episode's article:

Eg. Doctor Who (series 6), The Wire (season 1), Lost (season 1) List of Boardwalk Empire episodes, Heroes (season 1)

As you can see, none of these episodes list articles puts the entire plot of the episode in their summaries and only made the summary short and simple to understand without explaining too much. Hopefully this will put a stop to users who insist of putting the entire episode plot.--FonFon Alseif (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because others do it, doesn't mean this one has to as well. There are plenty of lists that go into detail about the episode in their summaries. A short summary is meant to be succinct yes, but it's still just that: a summary. It's purpose is to summaries the events of the episode. There is nothing wrong with going into detail. As per WP:MOS, summaries can be anywhere between 100-350 words. I think this has more to do with spoilers being included, which has already been discussed at length. If that is the case, then please note that WP:SPOILER clearly states that content cannot be removed from summaries simply because you think it spoils the plot. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem if the summary contains spoilers. The problem i have with Xeworlebi summary is that it contains too much info that is not needed when he/she could have just made it simple and short. Here's an example:

"At King's Landing, Varys visits Ned and tells him that if he confesses his "crimes" and swears loyalty to Joffrey, Cersei will spare life and let him serve the Night's Watch as his exile. Ned refuses, but finally relents after Varys tells him that his daughter Sansa's life will otherwise be at stake. After hearing his confession of treason, Joffrey goes against the wishes of his mother and Sansa and orders Ned's immediate execution, ordering Ser Ilyn Payne to sever his head from his body with one swift stroke."

Notice how he/she puts too much info about where Ned will be going, what he will be doing and how he dies and who kills him. Why is there a need to have that much info when he/she could have done something short like this:

"Ned makes a deal with Varys that he will make a false confession and swears fealty to Joffrey and Ceresi will let him live in exile and spare his daughter, Sansa. But Joffrey breaks his word and has Ned executed anyway."

See? It's short yet still has enough info to tell the readers whats going on. So why is it that this one episode summary is allowed to be long when the other nine are short? So why can't this summary too be short and still understandable?

I hope we can solve this issue quickly and amicably since i don't want to spend too much time on this one little issue when i have other articles to check as well.

PS:If i had somehow or someway offended you in anyway, i apologize.--FonFon Alseif (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the actual text, with its 211 words not a size problem at all, especially taking the multiple story-lines of the show:

Over dinner, Lord Tywin tells Tyrion that he and his barbarian allies will fight in the vanguard of the army. Meanwhile, the Stark army arrives at The Twins; however, Lord Walder has sealed off the bridge and refuses entry for the Starks, so Catelyn goes to negotiate with Lord Walder personally. At the wall, Jon is upset when Sam tells him about Robb's war against the Lannisters. Jon feels that he should be there to help Robb. Khal Drogo, delirious from an infection to his chest, falls from his saddle. Daenerys takes Drogo into her tent and sends for Mirri Maz Duur. Daenerys pleads with her to do something, but Drogo's bloodriders will not hear of it and want the healer killed. At King's Landing, Varys visits Ned and tells him that if he confesses his "crimes" and swears loyalty to Joffrey, Cersei will spare life and let him serve the Night's Watch as his exile. Ned refuses, but finally relents after Varys tells him that his daughter Sansa's life will otherwise be at stake. After hearing his confession of treason, Joffrey goes against the wishes of his mother and Sansa and orders Ned's immediate execution, ordering Ser Ilyn Payne to sever his head from his body with one swift stroke.

And it was replaced by a cheesy whodunit text, not actually saying anything:

With Sansaʼs life in danger, Ned makes a fateful decision. Catelyn brokers an unsavory deal with the slippery Walder Frey. Tyrion acquires a mistress and is forced by his father to fight on the front lines. Robb wins his first major victory and captures a prized prisoner. Jon is rewarded for his valor and discovers a dark secret about Maester Aemon. As Drogoʼs wound festers, Daenerys defies her bloodrider Qotho and puts her trust in the enslaved witch Mirri Maz Duur.

For the record, I didn't write that in the first place, I only tried to save a summary that actually says something in favor of a nothing-saying 'something-bad-is-going-to-happen-in-this-episode', aka a teaser. I don't have a problem with it being shortened, but there's no need for it in the first place, I do have a problem with teasers, especially when there's a better alternative available. The version you have just proposed is among some minor issues factually wrong. The current version isn't perfect, and actually misses some things, but it's better than the teaser version. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Here, let me help with that.

Tyrion and his barbarian allies are ordered to fight in the vanguard of the Lannister army. Meanwhile, the Starks make a deal with the unsavory Lord Walder Frey to help them and Robb makes a strategic move that will cost some of his men lives. Jon is conflicted to abandon his duty to the Night's Watch and join his family's war but Maester Aemon teaches him a harsh lesson on loyalties. With Khal Drogo dying form his wounds and his Dothraki warriors losing respect for her, Daenerys summons the "witch" Mirri to use forbidden blood magic to save her husband's life. Ned finally makes a deal with Varys and Cersei by making a false confession and swearing fealty to Joffrey in order to save his and his daughters lives, but Joffrey refuses to honor it and has Ned executed.

So what do you think? Shorter and still enough important plot points in the summary.--FonFon Alseif (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Still some nothing-saying teaser-y stuff, and it's factually inaccurate. Why do you insist so much on shortening the summary? It's not like it's excessive in any way. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And why are you so against people changing the summary to make it shorter and better? Furthermore the summary i rewritten for you is more accurate about the plot and doesn't need too much trivia info. Does the reader need to know the executioner who kills Ned and the way he kills him? Do they want to know that Tyrion was having dinner with his father over their plans against the Starks? Is the fact who negotiated with Lord Frey and where it happen important? The answer to all of this no. The reader just needs a summary that get straight to the point without the unnecessary excessive details. Please see reason and stop being obsess about it.--FonFon Alseif (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the versions you have proposed are not better, they are in fact worse and plainly inaccurate. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why won't you do something about it? If my summary is plainly inaccurate, surely you can make a better one than the one that's currently posted.--FonFon Alseif (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? There's nothing really wrong with the other one… _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's of course a matter of opinion what parts of an episode's story are relevant enough to be described here, but IMO your version certainly can be improved: The strong new alliance between Starks and Freys bought with promises of two marriages, Tyrion's marriage with Tysha and the role Tywin and Jaime played, Tyrion's new relationship with Shae, the outcome of Tyrion's battle, the capture of Jaime, Daenerys being carried into the tent where 'the dead will dance tonight', Yoren finding Arya, those are all significant events that are not mentioned in that summary, some presumably very relevant for future episodes.
I also can understand FonFon Alseif concern about the imbalance of the lengths of the summaries, but I'd say that in the long term this may be best addressed by adding more relevant information to the other episode summaries. Amalthea 13:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly, FonFon Alseif wants to strip even more info from the summaries, while instead they should contain more. I'm not saying "my version" (not actually mine, but whatever) is perfect (no such thing as perfect), but a summary with a good portion of the relevant info is certainly better than one without any relevant info. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of context

This article is essentially useless to anyone who has not already been following the series in great detail. It needs to be rewritten from the top down to explain who these characters are. I've flagged half a dozen cases where a character name is mentioned (so-and-so did thus-and-such to you-know-who), where these characters have never been mentioned before on the page, so no one but the page authors and pre-existing fans of the series have any idea what you're talking about. Pretend you know absolutely nothing about this series when revising it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of this stems from the fact that all the characters were merged to lists, as was appropriate for a series of novels, and have never been broken out again, now that the characters' have gotten RS coverage on the actors' interpretations, etc. The whole area needs work, but I'm inclined to agree with the below commentator that individually tagging each instance is probably not that helpful. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I never edit Wikipedia pages or read discussion pages, but I just had to know why there were so many [clarification needed] links here; you've made the page incredibly bothersome to read. Please, if you care enough about clarity to vandalize an otherwise serviceable page, consider just making the changes yourself instead. Gharowse (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Impending breakou of S1 articles into

I intend to break out Game of Thrones (season 1) into its own article at some point in the near future. This is per established Wikipedia convention, where multi-season shows have a "list of SHOWNAME episodes", without detailed content on each episode, and an "SHOWNAME (season X)" article for each season, with brief descriptions of the articles, and "EPISODENAME" articles for each notable episode within a season. This will require some restructuring of and an apparent reduction in content within this article, but never fear--it will all be safe in the first season article that I will be spinning off. While it might be more typical to do this once the second season has started airing, my goal is to get the first season to its own good topic by the time the second season starts, so the early split will help facilitate that. Please let me know if anyone has any questions, concerns, or wants to help! Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Written by" is a list of writers.

The table of episodes has a column title "Written by". One episode, "A Golden Crown", involves three writers. So I made this "David Benioff, D. B. Weiss and Jane Espenson" which does list the 3 writers. This was reverted repeatedly by some who want to describe this in detail: "Story by: David Benioff & D. B. Weiss, Teleplay by: Jane Espenson and David Benioff & D. B. Weiss" which is absurdly verbose, naming two writers twice, bloating the already long list of writers to three lines. All the detail is exhaustively covered in the article A Golden Crown. The table is a SUMMARY. It has a column called "Written by", not "Story by" and "Teleplay by", and that there isn't a column by those titles in the template indicates that that information is not considered important enough to be listed so prominently. To placate the completists, I included all the information, and added a link to section A_Golden_Crown#Writing in a footnote, and of course that wasn't prominent enough so it was reverted (making 3 reverts, by a tag team so it doesn't count). I gather the rationale is WP:Other stuff exists. Or is there is an actual policy or guideline that explains why we need to describe who did exactly what in such detail? If so, please be specific. Barsoomian (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The real question for me is why not include it? This is an encyclopedia after all, shouldn't our goal be to present as much information as accurately and clearly as possible? None of the arguments you've presented have made any impression on me at all. You say it's redundant to list Benioff and Weiss twice, well they wrote seven other episodes as well. Why not just leave the entire column out and use a footnote? For a more practical reason, I know for a fact that there are a lot of people who use Wikipedia lists like this to add information to other websites, such as IMDb, TV.com, Epguides and EpisodeWorld. When you start simply lumping in unclarified information like you would do, you're running the risk of having incorrect information spread across various TV websites. It might not seem like a big deal, but it does happen. Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that you don't like the way the story/teleplay credits look in the table. I would actually agree with you on that point and I wish there were a more aesthetically pleasing way to go about it, but I'd much rather have it looking like this with the information than having a prettier table without it. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I already said why not. The reason I looked at it to begin with was that the table was bloated. It's designed to have one or two names in that slot, not five and a description of what each one did. And while I wouldn't care about "Story by X, Teleplay by Y", this is just silly, with two writers double-dipping. The heading is "Written by". All that requires is the names of the people who wrote it. All the other stuff about who did this part and who did that is in the full article on the episode. The same as the plot is reduced to one or two lines. The most important facts are here, the rest is one link away. And WTF are you talking about "unclarified information like you would do"? Not to mention "incorrect"? That is absurd. The facts as I laid them out are completely accurate. The footnote "clarifies" it for those who want the details. But I reiterate: it's not about sacrificing accuracy to make the table "pretty": it's about simply listing the writers in the slot that is labelled "Written by". As a general principle I think you should look very critically any time anyone starts filling in a templated table with "facts" they think must be there despite not quite fitting the description. Change the template if you think that's inadequate. Template:Episode list; the doc says "WrittenBy (optional): Primary writer(s) of the episode". That's all. [User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Double dipping? The column is indeed named "Written by" and for this episode the episodes story was written by David Benioff & D. B. Weiss and the teleplay by Jane Espenson & David Benioff & D. B. Weiss. Besides this being simply the way it is done pretty much everywhere I completely fail to see what the problem is, besides the obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And since when is "making 3 reverts, by a tag team so it doesn't count" a rule? If there's one, please link to it at WP:3RR, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that at WP:3RRNO. Anyway, you haven't broken the 3RR yet, but your good on your way though. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Double dipping" I thought was self-explanatory: The same names listed twice in the same box, by making a distinction that we don't need to and aren't required to (in this table ). Simple solution: don't make the distinction. I never said "making 3 reverts, by a tag team so it doesn't count was a rule". I was just describing what was happening. I was being summarily reverted by two people in turn with no discussion, and you could then 3R me -- as you've just implied you could. But how about instead of just steamrolling me or labelling me "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" (which is bullshit and insulting because I have explained exactly WHY I think this is better) you cite something that says it's required to list all these details under "Written by". Because I looked through the template docs and all its archived discussion page and saw nothing about putting all these subcategories of writing in that box, just the "writer(s)". (Though as I mentioned, I wouldn't object in other cases that didn't have the absurdity and duplication it creates here.) Or explaining what is wrong with simplifying the table as I did and leaving the details to a footnote? If it 1) Looks better and 2) Includes all the information on the page, why not? Again, the template docs say this is for the "Primary writer(s)". So it's not even required to list ALL of the writers, let alone in such exhaustive detail as if it were an Academy Award thank-you speech. Barsoomian (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Double dipping is just a ridiculous description of this, you make it sound like we're the PR people of these writers. You said it doesn't count, which is simply not true, saying it doesn't means you have some kind of rule up your sleeve that states it doesn't. You were "being summarily reverted by two people in turn with no discussion", how about "you reverted two people without as much as a discussion. In my opinion you have given no real reason why this shouldn't be done, all the reasons you have given boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, which I don't see how that's insulting but that's how I see your reasons. But instead you're requesting we show you some kind of rule, lets take it the other way around and let you come up with were it says it can't be done like that. Most of Wikipedia's rules are 'don't do this', rarely 'you have to do this'. It's simply more precise and accurate, doing it doesn't do any harm at all. And it's simply the way it's done, take a look at some FL's if you don't believe me (every single word is a FL with story/teleplay distinction!). The "it's not required" is kinda silly argument, nothing is required, the entire column is optional. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't seen a decent argument as to why we shouldn't include the information. As Xeworlebi said, it is a column to list the writers of each episode. In this instance, the story for the episode was Benioff and Weiss', while the teleplay was written by Espenson, Benioff and Weiss. It's as simple as that. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Since no one is actually responding to my arguments, just denigrating them, failing to cite any policies or guidelines, this reduces to a simple numbers game, and with 2: 1 you must win. So cut to the chase: Put the entire crew in the table, twice, if you want. I'm un-watching the page and leave it to its fate. Barsoomian (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your arguments. Simply, the alternative is unwieldy and unnecessary but most importantly is not consistent. It does not match similar pages on the rest of Wikipedia so adding "teleplay by" and "written by" will require a greater consensus.92.40.254.93 (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually many, many, many episode list pages use this formatting. See The Big Bang Theory, The Sopranos, Lost, Fringe, etc. Please allow for a discussion before making changes. The current consensus is to keep this formatting as it is more accurate and informative. Please do not revert again. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the consensus is now 2:2 which is not per se a consensus. In addition on the pages linked that template is consistently applied across the entire series. And in a neater format as well. If you wish to apply this format I would have no objection if you did so to all episodes (or most episodes) however for now it would be cleanest to just leave the names of all writers and add the specifics of their roles to the episode page.92.40.254.93 (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The format on this page is the same on all those pages, and there's nothing to say that GOT won't employee the same technique in the future. The problem is that not every episode of the show has the 'story/teleplay' designations, so it's impossible to come up with reasonable medium. This technique is employed on literally dozens and dozens of episode lists. Lost only used it a few times throughout its entire series, yet people feel it is noteworthy to distinguish between 'written by' and 'story/teleplay'. Also, as you pointed out that the argument is now two against two, that is a deadlock, which means you don't have a consensus to change the disputed content. I repeat, you do not have consensus to change the disputed content. Until it is three against two or ten against two, leave it as is. It's been this way since 1.06 originally aired, a few more days won't make a difference. I would also like to point out that Barsoomian withdrew from the argument months ago and has not reappeared, so I'm not sure if his two cents is valid. It may in fact be one against two. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I withdrew from arguing and watching the page when I was reverted. My opinion did not and has not changed. You could have asked me on my Talk page, rather than assuming for me. Barsoomian (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Box with links

At the bottom of this page there is a box of links for game of thrones episodes. I don't know how to do this or even if this is the right place to discuss this, but I feel that the box should be slightly expanded so it is for the show as a whole not just the episodes. This would mean adding just 5 more links to it (Season 3, Characters, Dothraki language, Music, and Awards). While this page also has the complete Somg of Ice and Fire box (which has these 5 links, but also a lot of stuff about the books etc too), the individual episodes' pages do not. I feel that this relatively minor change would make it easier to go straight from a particular episode to (for example) the cast list without having to go back to the main Game of Thrones page each time or adding the full Song of Ice and Fire box to every episode. Like I said, just 5 more links and a name change. Can someone with more experience please fix this? I suggest just putting the new five in a row under season 1 and season 2 called miscellaneous and moving the word episodes down a bit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.100.180 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Season 4

Someone wrote "<.!-- PLEASE DO NOT ADD SEASON 4 TO THE SERIES OVERVIEW UNTIL SEASON THREE HAS FINISHED AIRING AT THE VERY LEAST. --.>" in the code. However, I disagree and will create fillers for season 4 which has just been announced. If anyone wants to deletes them, discuss it here first please. Deleet (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It's too early entirely. WP:CRYSTAL and all of that. Besides that, it will look ugly, because it will basically just be a big empty table without anything substantial in it. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem.

Someone replaced the tables with templates. I wanted to edit the template Game of Thrones (season 3), because there's an incorrect date, but it's impossible. When I click "View templates on this page" and want to edit the template, it brings be to an article about the season, not the template with episode list.--Warenford (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should be pulling from Game of Thrones (season 3)#Episodes. There's some tricky work in that table that pulls in just the short version of the table here. —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's called transcluded. Episode tables are transcluded here from individual season articles to keep the LoE page from getting too big and so that we don't have to edit two different tables every single time. Many, many, many LoE pages on Wikipedia do this (The Office, Desperate Housewives, Lost and The Walking Dead just to name a few) because it is more convenient for editors and keeps the pages from being too cluttered. If you want to edit the episode tables, you just need to go to the season article and edit the table there. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this why the Season 3 Table is displaying Season 2 episodes? We should fix this. Zerhynn (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Season 3 Table referencing Season 2

Fixed the template for season 2 making the season 3 table show season 2 episodes. Zerhynn (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

DVD

DVD info please.-96.233.20.151 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

DVD info does not belong on this page. Policy WP:TVOVERVIEW. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Duration

can we add the duration of each episode to the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:1482:3888:18A1:945:F493:92C0 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done And what would this achieve? The main article already gives the Running Time as "50–65 minutes". Alex|The|Whovian 01:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

DVR Ratings

2015: 9.348 million; may 10 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.19 (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Colours

Anyone else think these colours hurts your eyes? Background White with this strong Red is really hurting. Isn't there a brighter tone of red?

Tschis (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to change the colours for all season headings. I have only managed to successfully do this for the "season overview" section.

The colours should be the following:

Season 1: #586551

Season 2: #8D6940

Season 3: #854141

Season 4: #42798E

Season 5: #725A7E

I have taken these colours from the official www.gameofthrones.com site each season is shown in a distinct colour scheme with those specific html reference colours as listed above.

I do not believe that there is a wikipedia convention on TV season colouring as I checked several popular TV series and they all have totally different colour schemes. So I would recommend adopting the official colour scheme.

Could someone make the necessary updates to the individual Season pages? I was unable to update the colours on the table. Maybe someone could do that :( Thank you! 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done These colours have been reverted. Colours are always picked from the marketing material, as per the season pages - read WP:COLOR. Alex|The|Whovian 22:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realise. Thank you. 13:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing Episodes

In the Telivision series there are a few episodes that are missing. They are extras, prologues I believe. Here is a site for streaming the episodes (Redacted) On this website it has Season 3: Episode 0, Season 4: Episode 0, and Season 5 Episode 0.

I'm not sure if we should add them in or not, but at the very least, I will leave that note here so that if someone wants to add them, they can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.48.47 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

These aren't episodes, they're behind-the-scenes documentaries. However, a Specials table might not go amiss. Alex|The|Whovian 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ratings

A few words on source, background and meaning of those, anyone? Akodi (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is the section containing audience figures called "Ratings", anyway? It does not show any performance or content related assessment, which I would expect to be essential for a rating. 217.251.131.4 (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Because that's what they're called (see: Nielsen ratings). Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Seems I was biased from working with institution or asset ratings, hence easily confused by the singular word. 217.251.131.4 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Related list for deletion

I've nominated the new List of Game of Thrones directors for deletion, if anyone would like to participate in the discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 14:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles for leaked episodes?

Is there a rule for or against writing articles on episodes that haven't aired yet, but have been unofficially and widely released? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I know this is late, but I presume that it would be a copyright violation to mention anything which hasn't been mentioned in any other sources but allowed to mention that the episodes were leaked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's never too late to hear from the Emir, even if the point's moot on those four. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Directors with multiple episodes

This is not the same as the List of Directors of Game of Thrones. This table is keeping track who has directed the most amount of episodes. Many other articles have similar tables. - AffeL (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same. There's a reason why that article was deleted. It was fancruft, there is absolutely no need to keep a tally on the directors. It provides no encyclopedic value. You continue to make arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I would have assumed you realized that this has no standing after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Game of Thrones directors (2nd nomination), with so many keep votes but the article was deleted based on that argument. Although, after almost three years here, I have never seen an article with a tally list of directors - please, link some. And if you revert again, you will be in violation of WP:BRD and, more important, the policy of WP:3RR, and will be filed for yet another block from editing for edit-warring. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Their are numerous of other pages with similiar tables. That keep tracks of stuff like this. This is absolutely necessary. And you will be reported if you keep removing content from wiki. - AffeL (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You made a bold edit. You were reverted, so it's up to you to discuss. You are the one that needs to learn the protocols on discussions and editing. And, yet again, I find myself repeating myself: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no basis for inclusion in articles. Try again with a more solid reason on how it provides value to the encyclopedia. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is their no need to keep a tally on the directors. You are the one who has to explain yourself and give a valid reason as to why. Or are just gonna keep using the word "fancruft". - AffeL (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic WP:TRIVIA and as such does not belong here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Without jumping in on either side, note that the deletion of an article is not per se evidence that that content should not be kept in the encyclopedia, just that it has been determined that it should not exist as a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I'm quite disappointed to see the back-and-forth on the contents of the list, with NOTHING being discussed on talk by anyone. That's not how collaborative editing is supposed to work. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: You're a bit late to the party, friend. An entire discussion has been started and concluded elsewhere. Kudos for attempting to get involved, though. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 05:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly late to anything; I intentionally waited. I read the discussion, but didn't feel like calling you and AffeL out by name, nor reporting either or both of you to WP:ANEW, but your response really highlights what appears to be ignorance of how poor your (both) collective behavior has been. The proper place for discussion about an article is on its talk page per WP:TALK#USE and WP:OWNTALK--not his user talk page, not yours. The proper way to discuss things is NOT to revert, even a second time, without appropriate discussion. Please communicate more, and more appropriately. Use WP:3O if needed, or wait for someone else (like me) to come along and tiebreak in case of disagreements. In this case, Alex, I think you have the better case, but your intransigence and rush to revert does you no favors. Please do not further edit war over the article content, even when you know that you're right. That's almost as bad as a flagrant WP:DTTR violation... Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Yep. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 06:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Game of Thrones episodes. 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/20131016062544/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/01/game-of-thrones-casts-a-bear-and-shoots-in-los-angeles-for-major-season-3-scene.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/01/game-of-thrones-casts-a-bear-and-shoots-in-los-angeles-for-major-season-3-scene.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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. - Radiphus 17:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

---

MOS:TVPLOT says that an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary. However, the first six season articles of the series do not comply with the guidelines. I propose that instead of deleting these prose summaries altogether, we merge the content into this article by pasting it above the respective episode tables, similar to the style of Westworld (TV series)#Episodes and True Detective#Episodes. - Radiphus 06:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I would support this, however those season summaries would have to be significantly trimmed if they are moved, to roughly 200 words each. They would have to serve as more of an overview, than a detailed synopsis. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support: As Radiphus has shown, the situation at the moment breaches the manual of style, so on that ground the plot summaries must be removed. But putting them onto List of Game of Thrones episodes instead is a brilliant idea. While this has not been done to a "List of episodes" article before to my knowledge, this change would stop this article being nothing more than a list with names of Game of Thrones episodes on it. This idea could also be used on other series, it doesn't have to stop at Game of Thrones. TedEdwards 13:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It definitely is a great idea! Mainly because List of Episodes pages generally are pretty sparse in terms of actual prose, beyond a lede; it just includes an overview table and the various episode tables. Other articles have done it, including List of Lost episodes, List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, and List of Veronica Mars episodes – which are all FA-level articles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the summaries need to be trimmed to 200 words and preferably without any paragraph breaks. - Radiphus 20:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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