Talk:Game of Thrones

Single paragraph on parody

I am trying to add this paragraph to the article in the Other works based on the series section...

In 2014, an adult film parody of the series was produced. The movie is done vignette style and incorporates many of the main characters such as Jaime Lannister (Richie Calhoun), Jon Snow (Ryan Driller), Cersei Lannister (Brandi Love), Sansa Stark (Marie McCray), Daenerys Targaryen (Spencer Scott), Tyrion Lannister (Evan Stone), and Brienne of Tarth (Amanda Tate). It was produced by Hustler Video and directed by renowned parody creator Axel Braun.

References

First material was moved to another article about the books, but this material does not relate to the books, its associated with the television show. Another User reverted it almost completely calling it "excessive"[1]. The article is already over 100K in size, "morbidly obese" by article standards and a candidate for a WP:SPLIT. That said, how is a single 700K properly sourced paragraph excessive? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That information is already here in full detail. The main article doesn't need a blow-by-blow of the cast list, the producer, the directer, etc. for a porn parody (that's what is "excessive"). And IMDb is unacceptable as a reference. The way it is now is perfectly fine, it's summarizing content from the main article (Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire). You've been reverted by two separate users (including me), that gives an indication that this is unnecessary in this article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I meant to remove that since the content is related to the television show and not the books. As for the reversions, your actions are reportable at ANI and the Edit Warring Noticeboard. Someone saw fit to mention the porn parodies just based on an announcement, I added some additional detail that amounted to a well sourced and fairly tiny paragraph. In an article of this size, for you to take such exception with this amount of sourced content is just silly. Do you have a policy based objection versus an opinion? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The removal of the expanded paragraph from Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire#Parodies is unnecessary, just because the parodies are based off the TV series (which is based on the novels) doesn't mean it can't be included there. It seems a bit stubborn and to give you a reason to shoehorn this information into this article. The information you added was copyedited and trimmed by TAnthony, which then you reverted; then I reverted you because I agreed with TAnothny's version. There's a main article for parodies which is being linked to, there's no reason to have the exact same content in two places—it should be a trimmed-down version in this article because it's not the main article for this (parodies) information (WP:SS). Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

SCalhotrod, I moved the detail out of the main article because, you may notice, the main article only mentions/introduces derivative works and refers the reader elsewhere for more detail. Several topics in the article do this, including extended cast info for the series. Anyway, I agree with Drovethrughosts that you may be splitting hairs on the source being show vs. novels, Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire includes both because the TV series is based on the novels.— TAnthony^Talk 22:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Since you and Drovethrughosts are more familiar with this series of articles than I am, I'll defer to the move of content. When I saw the mention of IMDb, I did assume that it was a reversion based more on its use than the material. I still may a little more detail here, but I understand the rationale behind the changes. By the way, I would have self reverted on the Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire, but I see you have have already made the change. Regards, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Related AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of Thrones: A Day in the Life.  Sandstein  20:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Obama picture hoax

ummm the Obama picture is obviously photoshop'd? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8600:1D8E:D9A8:4ECA:B8CB:ACD3 (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying he was really on the throne, but the White House released the photo, which speaks to the cultural impact of the series.— TAnthony^Talk 13:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fansites in external links?

AS per WP:NOT, we don't list fansites. Although we allow a few of them to be used for citation purposes (a huge mistake, imo), we don't list/link them externally. We use actual concrete sources for that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits of "Use of sex and violence" section

I don't want to revert without discussion since the editor Padenton clearly put effort into the changes. I disagree with most of them though. I think some of the sources that were removed definitely qualify as reliable sources for the article - though I may be misunderstanding the policy. I fail to see how the Washington Posts or Atlantic columns would fail to qualify. I also think the SNL has been referenced on many articles and the fact that the issue was covered in such a mainstream satirical format is worth inclusion. Its not being used to cover facts but it's worth at least discussing I think. Caidh (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and am undoing the changes. SNL, for instance, is not used as a source for commentary, but as an indication for the perceived significance of these issues.  Sandstein  11:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the undue weight given in this section, but first one of my other edits that was reverted. In the lead, I made this change, which was not discussed on the talk page and I think you undid by accident when you undid all of my edits in response to this discussion. [2] Is this particular change in dispute as well, or can I return it?

Onto the edits under discussion here: It is my understanding that Charlie Anders is a blogger (as described on her wikipedia article), and as such, I do not believe that her commentary on Game of Thrones is appropriate for the article (WP:RS). I also removed posts on Jezebel and Gawker, both of which I do not believe meet WP:RS. I also feel that Stephen Dillane's comment, which, in the article that is sourced, is more neutral on the topic, has been taken out of context in a way that would misrepresent his view on the issue. For that, I replaced it with his full comment. As for Washington Post and The Atlantic: I don't believe I removed any articles by The Atlantic. The Washington Post article is an opinion column.

Lastly, I still feel that this article gives undue weight (WP:UNDUE) as many of the actors (who these articles are alleging were victimized) have described these scenes in a very different light. My understanding is that the policy on criticism sections is that they should still remain neutral, and not give undue weight to one side. --Padenton (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with the change to Stephen Dillane's comment being included in full - I think that's a positive change. With regards to the Washington Post column, I'm not aware that there is anything against using an opinion column from a reliable source, at least based on my reading of the Statements of Opinion section of WP:Identifying Reliable Sources. Though Charlie Jane Anders identifies as a blogger, I think she definitely qualifies for the statement of "these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" from the Reliable Sources article. With regards to the undue weight of the section, I don't think it is that extensive. Its only four paragraphs, including multiple issues across different seasons from a variety of sources (both opinion and journalistic) and worth keeping as is for the most part in my opinion. You are correct that the source from The Atlantic wasn't removed - that was my mistake for misreading the edit summary, sorry about that! Caidh (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Caidh and Sandstein on this revert. I was tempted to revert that text, but I felt that Sandstein likely would and that we could discuss the matter afterward. And now here we are. Padenton removed criticism of the extensive female nudity and of the fact that it likely exists to attract heterosexual men; considering that this has been a big criticism of the show, it is WP:Due weight to have a whole paragraph about it. The content should not be censored to state "nudity" instead of "female nudity," or to remove "heterosexual men." That is not how WP:Neutral, which WP:Due weight is an aspect of, works. And Jezebel and Gawker do qualify as WP:Reliable sources in certain cases; ask at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard if you are not sure, and/or check the archives there about those two sites. Also see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:About self. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for those links Flyer22, though I'm not sure I understand how WP:About self comes into play here. To be clear, my removal of the 'heterosexual men' line was because it was sourced by an opinion piece, which I felt inappropriate for the article and a violation of WP:RS, as I said (I believe quite clearly) above. As your user page indicates, you are a fan of Game of Thrones yourself, so you know as well as I do that there is plenty of male nudity in the series as well. Not as much, but there is certainly enough that saying "nudity" instead of "female nudity" in the lead section of an article is not censorship. Sophie Turner (actress) described the show as having more male nudity than any other show, while Kit Harington describes the amount as 'a lot' [3].

I am also interested in your thoughts as to my proposed changes above, it seems you mostly commented on my original edits to the article in that diff. Particularly including Stephen Dillane's full comment on the nudity (in place of the cherry picked fragment), as well as comments by Alfie Allen on Theon's various torture scenes. Alfie Allen describes a fan encounter with a victim of domestic violence that drew strength from the torture scenes [4]. Perhaps we could expand this to also add comments from David & Dan on the controversy (We already have GRRM's comment in the Jaime Cersei paragraph), Comments from Sophie Turner (actress) (Sansa), Carice Van Houten (Melisandre), and Nathalie Emmanuel (Missandei) on how they feel it serves a purpose [5], comments from Natalie Dormer (Margaery) [6] and Kit Harington (Jon)[7] that there could be more male nudity. I'm not saying every one of these should be added, but it would be due to show more than just a one-sided look at these issues. --Padenton (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the male nudity has received the same criticism as the female nudity has, which is what this section is about. As for the opinion piece, this section is about critics opinions, so that isn't really grounds to remove it. As for Dillane's thoughts, I think they should be removed. He is a part of the show, so isn't really a neutral voice on the subject, and Padenton was right in pointing out that if his thoughts are included, all these other cast and crew members thoughts could be added as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I made this edit today and given the above discussion I wanted to run it by you all: [8]. Nowhere in the article does David Itzkoff suggest that Alex Graves (the director for the episode) was unaware what he was filming was a rape scene. What Graves said (and what Itzkoff quoted him as saying to HitFix) is "that the characters’ coupling became “consensual by the end.”" It's still controversial, but it does not contradict other statements this director has made regarding the scene since its airing. The actual quote from the interview w/ HitFix.com is ""Well, it becomes consensual by the end, because anything for them ultimately results in a turn-on, especially a power struggle."

Seeing the comments here, my understanding is that the consensus thus far is:

• The blogs satisfy WP:RS in the context of critic reception and therefore stay
• SNL stays
• Stephen Dillane's quote should either be included in full or removed for COI. And if included, we should add other cast comments (such as those above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padenton (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't share this understanding regarding Dillane. His opinion is interesting because it's openly critical of a somewhat significant aspect of the series of which he is a part, which is very unusual for an actor who might be expected to promote the work he appears in. I'm not aware of any other actor having expressed themselves about the use of sexuality in the series, but if any have, we may well want to include their opinion too.  Sandstein  13:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a cut out fragment of what he actually said, Sandstein. What he said is he presumes it serves a purpose. His complete quote (in the source linked) is here: “It doesn’t particularly appeal to me, reminds me of German porn from the 1970s. But I presume it serves a purpose, and the merits of the show far outweigh my concerns on that score.” Its usage in the article is taking his words out of context, and misrepresents his opinion as being critical of the show when he's clearly not. --Padenton (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

But he is critical of this aspect of the series, which is what is being discussed in that part of the article, saying that it doesn't appeal to him because it looks like dated porn. He does go on to note that the series has other, more important merits, but these merits are being discussed (and rightly so) in another part of the article, so it would be out of place to mention them here.  Sandstein  16:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"it doesn't particularly appeal to me" isn't the same as saying "I don't agree with its inclusion". He goes on to say that "But I presume it serves a purpose". Also, while you're here, what is your opinion on adding perspectives from other cast members as I included above? --Padenton (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't say that he objects to its inclusion. The Dormer/Emmanuel quotes about nudity being a woman's weapon in this world might be added to provide a different actors' perspective, though.  Sandstein  17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Updated Awards section

I went and updated the Awards section from the Main article. There is still a problem with some of the years which were also incorrect on the List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones and in the previous ver of the page, but the old version of the table was missing references for most of the list, only went up to 2013, and was missing a lot of notable awards. Left todo on this section:

• Remove any remaining references that are just to nominations
• Linkify remaining cells in the Awards column that don't link to that respective years award
• Linkify names of people with articles and episodes that aren't yet linkified in the article
• Make sure all the awards are in the correct year (a few aren't, for example the SAG awards are messed up). Any change made in this article's table also needs to be made here. --Padenton (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Madeleine Davies Rewrite: NPoV

The current Game_of_Thrones#Use_of_sex_and_violence section describes Madeleine Davies criticism as follows:

Madeleine Davies wrote in Jezebel that "it's not uncommon that Game of Thrones gets accused of being torture porn — senseless, objectifying violence combined with senseless, objectifying sexual imagery". But, according to her, the series' violence tended to serve a narrative purpose, except for the titillation and torture of Theon Greyjoy in "The Bear and the Maiden Fair.

[Game of Boners: This Is Torture Porn http://jezebel.com/game-of-boners-this-is-torture-porn-504821180]

What she actually said in the article on this topic was:

It's not uncommon that Game of Thrones gets accused of being torture porn — senseless, objectifying violence combined with senseless, objectifying sexual imagery — but it is rare that I can whole heartedly agree that it is torture porn. For the most part, the violence in Game of Thrones tends to serve a purpose (the nudity, slightly less so, but — hey — it's not TV, it's HBO).

...

This week, however, the show managed to teeter over the thin line that they've drawn for themselves and fall onto the wrong side. The violence became meaningless, exhausting and on top of all that, they managed to add boobs and some anachronistic pubic hair. Cool.

The current article implies that she agrees with the accusations of torture porn on a regular basis, which she explicitly says she doesn't.--Padenton (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite see the issue. The article quotes Davies as saying that the series is often accused of being torture porn. That doesn't mean that she agrees with this assessment. Because we also quote her as defending the use of violence in the series, it's hard to get the impression that she (fully) agrees with that appraisal.  Sandstein  13:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the implication is there that Davies agrees with those assessments regularly. I'm not suggesting we get rid of it altogether, I'm not suggesting we get rid of the entire first sentence. I'm suggesting we try and improve how her opinion is presented. I would've made a suggested revision myself but I couldn't think of how best to word it at the time, so I posted here. I would be satisfied with the following revision:

Madeleine Davies wrote in Jezebel that "it's not uncommon that Game of Thrones gets accused of being torture porn — senseless, objectifying violence combined with senseless, objectifying sexual imagery". She felt that "for the most part, the series' violence tends to serve a [narrative] purpose," except for the titillation and torture of Theon Greyjoy in "The Bear and the Maiden Fair", which she felt crossed the line.

[Game of Boners: This Is Torture Porn http://jezebel.com/game-of-boners-this-is-torture-porn-504821180]

Thoughts? --Padenton (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Omitting of characters line

I feel this [9] is unnecessary information and too soon. I can understand where you're coming from, over the years there's been countless articles and speculation on what characters were cut. However, reading a lot of these articles and the quotes that were contained in them, the cuts of a certain character have never been actually confirmed. All the articles I read on the Iron Islands plotline being cut, Stoneheart, etc. they all took quotes and ran with them.

1. Nearly every book->screen adaptation does this to some extent, there's less time to provide depth to characters than in prose and there's limited budget to go around for casting a wide cast. Thus far, Game of Thrones has actually kept it under par, and has included the vast majority of the characters from each book.

2. Yes, there was no casting announcement for the Iron Islands plotline in AFfC/ADwD. However, it has not been announced whether the Iron Islands plot was cut entirely or if it's being pushed back to S6 (or later for all I know). Hell, they might've kept it under wraps, they might have kept the people from S2 and given them names.

3. Lady Stoneheart's omission has never been confirmed by the actress nor anyone involved in the production. She did not need to appear at the end of Season 4 for her storyline to continue with the books.

4. We don't know yet whether there will be other sand snakes that were cast as minor characters or not.

That leaves the biggest characters I can think of that haven't been in the show Olyvar Frey, Strong Belwas, and Edric Storm. Perhaps you could share the characters you were thinking of? ― Padenton |☎  22:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with you here, but more because the phrase is unsourced. If the phrase is meant to convey that Martin has a cast of 1000 and the show only depicts 40, that is a common situation with adaptations but could be notable if a reliable source has mentioned it. And someone may have, considering how much coverage the show gets. If we're talking about other, specific characters, I would suggest that noting they are "missing" implies that these characters are notable, and asserting characters' notability requires a source. It's the same thing as going into detail about storyline deviations without a reliable source noting the differences first. Now if there are a couple of articles that mention notable absences then perhaps there's a place to note that, but probably not in exactly this way. For example, I'm guessing that someone somewhere has noted the Sand Snake shortage, and perhaps that would be of note in the character list or in Game of Thrones (season 5). Same for Strong Belwas, etc. You're also right, characters we think are missing could appear later (like Meera and Jojen did), but if they're absent now it's notable with a source.— TAnthony^Talk 02:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I read an article that mentioned the omission of such relatively prominent (POV-)characters as Aegon Targaryen, Victarion Greyjoy and Quentyn Martell. But I agree that a source would be preferable. Maybe we find a reasonably comprehensive one.  Sandstein  10:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Watchersonthewall.com spam

As some contributors may be aware, there is a problem with links to the fansite watchersonthewall.com being systematically spammed as references across Wikipedia by one block-evading sockpuppeteer, see generally Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piandme/Archive and for recent spamming the edits of the most recent sock DickissoWitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That is a WP:BLP problem because this self-published fansite is being used as a reference for BLP content, such as unannounced appearances of certain actors in certain roles. I've made a blacklist request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#watchersonthewall.com and would appreciate it if other admins would evaluate and/or act on it.  Sandstein  23:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot

What does the over-the-top statement "interweaves several plot lines with a broad ensemble cast" mean? What is a "broad cast", and what in this context is an "ensemble cast"?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ensemble cast. I'd prefer 'large ensemble cast' over broad, but otherwise it's entirely accurate. ― Padenton |☎  14:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dinklage playing Tyrion Lannister

He said this in a 2012 NPR article:

"Dinklage points out that Tyrion tells the jokes, but the character is far from one. And while the physicality of the character is part of the role, Dinklage says, it is not its defining feature.

"It would be stupid if he weren't addressed as an 'imp' in this world, given the surroundings," Dinklage says. "It does address the size issue, but it doesn't knock you over the head with it. Because you don't really need to."

Should we include his own words from the NPR article referring to his character addressed in the show as "imp" vs. using Original Research in the article that now says "clever dwarf" (which has no reliable source) and is not really used in the show?

Also this entire section is all Original Research. There is already a separate page called List of Game of Thrones characters.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/21/153198363/peter-dinklage-on-thrones-and-on-his-own-terms

"Imp" is excessive detail here, he's not so often referred to only by this sobriquet that we need to mention it in the overview. Original research isn't a problem here as this is a summary of the character list, see WP:SS.  Sandstein  09:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Where does WP:SS discuss original research guidelines? Can you point it out? 104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Duplicates the discussion below, please continue there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See the section below.  Sandstein  17:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) The Original research in question is using "clever dwarf" to describe the Tyrion Lannister character -- rather than what HBO itself uses (see the NPR article). Wikipedia uses the same language on another page see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrion_Lannister I proposed to remove "clever dwarf" and replace it with Tyrion Lannister also referred to as "the Imp" or "the Halfman" with a reference. "clever dwarf" is not what the show uses and weakens the character and should probably be removed. It's best to use what HBO/NPR uses. Do you agree? That way we can start moving the cast and characters section towards having more high-quality references.104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Cast and characters section

After the first paragraph, this section is 100% Original Research. It's not well written, it's very awkward, and cumbersome. Is it necessary?104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

See section above. Per WP:SS, we summarize important subarticles in overview articles.  Sandstein  09:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Where does WP:SS discuss original research guidelines? Can you point it out? 104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Or to put it another way ... what specifically in this section do you think is wrong and not supported by the series itself as a primary source? See WP:PSTS: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."  Sandstein  17:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Original research in question is using "clever dwarf" to describe the Tyrion Lannister character -- rather than what HBO itself uses (see the NPR article). Wikipedia uses the same language on another page see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrion_Lannister

I proposed to remove "clever dwarf" and replace it with Tyrion Lannister also referred to as "the Imp" or "the Halfman" with a reference.

"clever dwarf" is not what the show uses and weakens the character and should probably be removed. It's best to use what HBO/NPR uses. Do you agree? That way we can start moving the cast and characters section towards having more high-quality references.104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The point of an overview article is to present a succinct summary of the important aspects of a topic, and in this case, to help readers identify the character they may vaguely remember from TV. For this purpose, a character's role and appearance is more important than nicknames, in my view. A source for "clever dwarf" or an equivalent description can certainly be found, but I'd like to hear from others too.  Sandstein  20:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Perfomed a search. There many more news sources like Time magazine for ex. who refer to the character as "the Imp". See http://time.com/3749757/game-of-thrones-season-5-clips-2/ I'd like to hear from more experienced editors too. You can eliminate "half-man" if you want. But Dwarf should be replaced with "Imp" and cited using the NPR article.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The NPR article isn't useful for this. It doesn't state that the character is referred to as "the Imp"; rather Dinklage is quoted referring to the character as "an imp" informally ("It would be stupid if he weren't addressed as an 'imp' in this world, given the surroundings," Dinklage says), no capitalization or indication that this is a regular nickname for the character. We'd need an explicit source. You're reading between the lines here. Skyerise (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. We need to hear from other editors. At this point, the "clever dwarf" needs to be removed because it's OR. The NPR article is sufficient, and we can add the Time magazine article and this one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/game-of-thrones/11479610/Game-of-Thrones-season-5-premiere-talking-points.html

No, I'm applying WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The NPR source does not directly support your assertion. If your assertion is true, there will be a source that makes a direct statement. The Telegraph article is also not making a statement about a nickname, it's also simply refering to "the imp" in passing, again without capitalization. This would support languages like "the character is referred to as 'an imp', but not "the character's nickname is 'The Imp'...". Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We need to hear from other editors please. I'm proposing to write it like this with references: "the "imp" Tyrion Lannister (played by Peter Dinklage)"

Here's MORE references using the name: http://au.ibtimes.com/game-thrones-season-5-spoilers-dark-days-are-coming-tyrion-jon-snow-videos-1431252

DAILY VARIETY:

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/game-of-thrones-poster-season-5-preview-tyrion-dragon-1201443553/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=7FFGD5x6GlIC&pg=PT88&lpg=PT88&dq=the+imp+HBO&source=bl&ots=kzjsvatNR3&sig=MmUve3f5I9uSUZ9AOztK332Yc5c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=29IVVa7iMIztoASYnYDAAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=the%20imp%20HBO&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The last source (the book) appears to be fine, unless other editors object. Skyerise (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I object too. "Imp" is ambiguous and misleading; "clever dwarf" is plainly descriptive. This is a (poor) solution in search of a problem. —Cryptic 22:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back up what you say? "Clever dwarf" is not what HBO calls the character. Its all over the internet that he's referred to in the show as "the imp". I can provide ten references from major news outlets for the change. I implore you please give me just one? 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As has been said by others, some things are plainly obvious. If you are unfamiliar with the show, you can understand what the words clever and dwarf mean in this context. Regardless of the fact that has occasionally been used as a slur against Tyrion (in the books more than the show by far), it isn't nearly as descriptive to the reader of the article. The dictionary definition of 'imp' is completely unrelated to the character Tyrion.Caidh (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire section seems pretty awkward to me and I agree it could use some work, but 'also known as "the imp" and "the halfman"', while actually being present in the show, doesn't really impart any information about the character. ― Padenton|✉   15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please inform us if Tyrion is ever referred to as a "clever dwarf" in the show? I beseech you my fellow Wikipedians, please see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrion_Lannister 104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)