Talk:The Watchers on the Wall

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A Song of Ice and FireWikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireTemplate:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireA Song of Ice and Fire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lede edit back and forth[edit]

There's been a bit of back and forth with the Lede for this article, with one editor insisting that only main cast characters should be mentioned, whereas other editors consider accuracy to be a better litmus test for inclusion. I'm one of the editors and I've (repeatedly) asked the other editor to come to discussion to confer on the matter. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken in how you are approaching this. I made the original post over a week ago and it stood just fine; someone else came and put a minor character into it. This show is about multiple plot lines and one of them surrounds the character of Jon Snow, who is a major cast member. The episode is, in effect, his story; not Alliser Thorne's, who is a bit player played by a recurring cast member who recently returned after a three year absence for two episodes. If you take a moment to go back into the history of this page, you will see that user InedibleHulk made the change you keep reverting back to, and not to the original which served the episode fine. Damonskye (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it doesn't matter who made the edit. Once you were reverted, it became your responsibility to discuss the matter. Last time I checked, none of us are telepathic, so I cannot read your reasonings - and I'll remind you that calling someone "pedantic" and "puerile" makes it difficult for that person to give you more than a modicum of AGF. You might want to remember that for future reference.

Now, on to the main thrust of your edits/reverts. It does the reader no good whatsoever to obfuscate the actions of any of the characters to force them to focus on the main cast. However, if you have a reference that explicitly excludes Thorne, then by all means present it here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my vantage point, it has nothing to do with minor, major or anything else about the show in our world. In their world, the Wall is manned by an army. There's a structure. Some tell what to do, some do what they're told. Alliser Thorne was clearly in charge when he asked "Does fucking hold mean fucking drop?" and the rest up there (including Jon Snow) said "No, ser!"

With that authority, he gave responsibility for leading to Slynt, but muttering to yourself isn't doing the job. So Grenn told him Thorne needed him. Why Thorne? Because he's the leader, and Grenn came from a farm.

Snow didn't have the official position to lead, but he did it, anyway. He sent Sam to get Ghost, gave Edd the Wall (and finally said his name!) and was the first (and only) out the gate to solve the war. That counts.

Edd's simply too humble to mention, not minor.

I see ~~the latest~~ a recent compromise involves removing information on who led the defense, for the sake of making Jon Snow seem more important than another fictional character. It's no longer incorrect, but is that really fair to readers? Omitting two facts to subtly imply something that doesn't matter in the context of the battle? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Oathkeeper[edit]

There's an RS-related RfC on Oathkeeper. Participation and fresh voices would be welcome. The matter concerns a single-line reference to the chapters upon which the episode was based. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?[edit]

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The RfC concerning Westeros.org was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be addressed separately. 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) 21:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]