Talk:Game of Thrones

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

No mention of white walkers in second paragraph.

In the second opening paragraph it states 'The third story arc centers on the longstanding brotherhood charged with defending the realm against the ancient threats of the fierce peoples and legendary creatures that lie far north, and an impending winter that threatens the realm.' This does not include any mention of the white walkers which are a critical aspect of the series. Since the white walkers first appear in episode 1 of the series I do not believe this is a spoiler issue. The 'fierce peoples and legendary creatures' don't appear until season 2, yet they are still mentioned. I personally suggest the following amendment: 'The third story arc centers on the longstanding brotherhood charged with defending the realm against the ancient threats of the fierce peoples and legendary creatures that lie far north, along with an impending winter and the rumored 'white walkers' that threaten the entire realm.' Lemonny3663 (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The "legendary creatures that lie far north" are the White Walkers. -- Alex^TW 09:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was referring to the giants. 163.47.236.27 (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones is not LGBT-related

Why in all of a sudden has Game of Thrones been put into the LGBT-related category and allowed to stay that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.158.116.104 (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Because there are prominent LGBT characters with the narrative of the series. Especially concerning the Tyrells, Loras and Margaery; their storyline was based on Loras being gay, and the repercussions of this for the two characters. -- Alex^TW 07:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

LGBT is not a defining topic of Game of Thrones, also, Loras's sexuality was used as nothing more than a excuse by Cersei to take on the Tyrells, and especially, Margaery, if she didn't have that she would try to find another way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.158.116.104 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has said it was a defining topic, but it is definitely a major one within the series, as the series contains both gay and bisexual themes. LGBT characters are included within the series, hence LGBT categories are included in this article. -- Alex^TW 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a major one in the series, it's only depicted a few times, it would be depicted much more times if it really was one, just because a series has LGBT characters doesn't automatically mean it is LGBT-related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.181.192.145 (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Except that the LGBT as portrayed in the series was then a catalyst for major events within the series. No-one is saying it's LGBT-related - it includes LGBT character, so it includes the LGBT category. The category just so happens to be titled with the word "related". I'm not sure why you're so heavily opposed to being inclusive. Personal views, perhaps? We don't base articles on personal views. And do learn how to sign your posts properly. -- Alex^TW 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ad "Why in all of a sudden" by 177.158.116.104: do you mean that it was put there before and then removed again, was there a discussion on the topic? Just to make sure we did not miss something here. Thanks --WikiHannibal (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm wondering if 177.158.116.104 is Pedro8790, as the former only started editing after the latter stopped editing, and editing while logged out, when you already have an account, is ill-advised on Wikipedia. -- Alex^TW 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content rather than editors on article talk pages. If you suspect Pedro8790 of editing while logged out, there are appropriate places to raise that. Cjhard (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you not doing the same? Please discuss content rather than editors on article talk pages. If you have an issue with what I post, there are appropriate places to raise that. -- Alex^TW 23:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Alex and the IP editor, that "LGBT-related" is certainly not a defining characteristic of Game of Thrones. Per WP:CATDEF, I'm not sure why editors are advocating for the category to remain regardless. It seems as though the argument is that the mere existence of gay characters and that their homosexuality is dealt with means that the show is "related" to LGBT issues, which appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the role of categorisation on Wikipedia. Not a defining feature. Remove the category. Cjhard (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read this discussion properly, because I'm advocating for the category to remain... -- Alex^TW 23:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Alex. I did not suggest otherwise. Perhaps you should reread my comment. Cjhard (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You're saying you agree with me and that it should be removed. I'm saying it should stay. Not seeing the connection. -- Alex^TW 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Goodness me. "I agree with Alex and the IP editor, that "LGBT-related" is certainly not a defining characteristic of Game of Thrones... Per WP:CATDEF, I'm not sure why editors are advocating for the category to remain regardless." I'm afraid I can't break it down for you any further, and I believe the meaning was clear to any other reader. Cjhard (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Speak clearer next time. -- Alex^TW 23:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it was very clear to me what Cjhard meant. I also conditionally agree that the category should be removed. WP:CATDEF says: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having...". The emphasis is in the original, btw. Unless reliable sources commonly and consistently define Game of Thrones as a LGBT-related show, it shouldn't be categorized as such.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see AlexTheWhovian's response to this argument. -- 187.58.84.67 21:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe someone's position on this issue is affected by they way they interpret the word "related", which i believe is there to make the name of the category intentionally vague, in a way that WP:NONDEF can not apply. If this is an issue, the category should be renamed to something more specific (LGBT-themed, LGBT-focused, etc). Until then, it should be used the way it's supposed to. So, does the show have LGBT characters? Yes, it does. Are those characters important to the story? Yes, they are. Does those characters' sexuality affect their role in the story? Yes, it does. Everybody knows that, and if you think otherwise a simple google search should change your mind. Does this mean that the show is LGBT-related? I believe so, as it is a show in which we can see how LGBT characters handle situations that involve their sexuality. If you disagree, it would be useful to give us your own definition of "LGBT-related" and how it excludes Game of Thrones. -- Radiphus 08:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But the issue isn't what we "believe" or how we "interpret" -- it's what the sources say. Again, as quoted above, unless reliable sources "commonly and consistently" define a show as some thing, we can't categorize it as that thing. Also, if an editor wants to include a category, it's not another editor's job to find reasons to exclude it; it's that editor's job to find sources that justify it. WP:BURDEN and all that. (I'm ignoring, for now, the fact that "intentionally vague", non-defining categories are completely useless and not at all what categories are for in the first place.)--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As i said, the word "related" in the name of the category is vague. You will not find a source referring to any of the shows listed in the category as "LGBT-related". I told you that for a show to be LGBT-related, it should have important characters whose storyline involves their sexuality, and i could find you a million sources for that. Do you disagree with this definition? -- Radiphus 09:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

For a show to be LGBT-related it has to be a defining topic of the series, LGBT is not a defining topic of Game of Thrones, having LGBT characters doesn't automatically mean it is LGBT-related, you can't say that the Harry Potter movies are LGBT-related just because there is an LGBT character in them, Loras is not an important character, he and his sexuality was just used by Cersei as an excuse to take on the Tyrells, not enough to be LGBT-related, and for a character to be important you need much more than this, you can't just compare him to characters like Daenerys, Arya, Jon, Tyrion, just to cite a few examples, Oberyn and Ellaria's sexuality is even less important, sorry but there's no way Game of Thrones is LGBT-related. 191.33.120.102 19:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why is it that there is no (fyi: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) mention of gay, lesbian and bisexual themes included in the Cast and characters and Reception sections of the main article? Was it an accidental oversight ... or swept-under-the-rug by homophobia? Pyxis Solitary talk 11:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Pxy brings up a good point. If there is not LGBT material for us to write a section on its themes, then perhaps it doens't belong in the category.

My point would be this: Think functionality. Someone who clicks on the LGBT category is looking for WHAT, and does this article give it to them? I'm going to guess they're looking for articles in which LGBT issues or characters are the main or a main theme, and GoT simply happens to have some gay and bisexual characters in it. If I were looking for articles about the gay experience, I'd feel like I got spammed with this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh .. there is LGBT material. Nice try at dancing the smoke and mirrors twist. Pyxis Solitary talk 04:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see now: You were being sarcastic. I completely missed those links of yours the first time through your post. If these sources are good, then there may indeed be enough content for a section on LGBTQ issues in GoT in the Themes sub-article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is with this type of category, GoT is as much or as less LGBT or gay related as many other series in that category. Ultimately for any series that features at least one "significant" character that can be seen as gay/bi/transgender this category applies (GoT has at least 3 "significant" 3 characters with property: Oberyn Martell, Renly Baratheon, Loras Tyrell). One might question whether such categories are really helpful from an encyclopedic perspective (with a limited number of categories), but if such a category is used then making an exception for GoT makes no sense to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

By this standard, for example, the Harry Potter movies are LGBT-related, just because there is an LGBT character on them, obviously there is no way Harry Potter is LGBT-related, not a good standard to use. 191.33.120.102 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing it to be a good standard, I'm saying it is a general problem of such category types and/or their definition.

However if we do have such a category we cannot apply its definition selectively (based on personal whim).Probably half of the series currently in that category have sort of the same issue, that is at first glance they don't seem particularly LGBT related (but like GoT they apparently have at least one "significant" character being gay/bi/transsexual).

Also on top of my head i don't recall Harry Potter having a significant gay/bi/trans character.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dumbledore (though that's not directly in the books). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That of course has nothing to do with the films.--WikiHannibal (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this category if we're voting. LGBT-related should mean something more than "has one gay character". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It means (according to the category definition), having a "significant" gay character, GoT has three, Harry Potter has none (who is explicitly gay).--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Renly and Loras are not "significant" characters, also, what do you mean by "explicitly", do you mean that Dumbledore doesn't count because there is no gay scenes? If that's the case, there are no gay scenes involving Oberyn in GOT. Having a "significant" LGBT character is not a good standard BTW. 177.158.173.35 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't watched the show recently, but from memory I'd classify Loras as a "significant" gay character. Renly and Oberyn are both only in one season each, IIRC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

At present, the best way I think is to compare GoT and other shows in the category, and if some of the shows already included are apparently "less" LGBT-related, GoT should be included in the category. Basically what Kmhkmh says. It it is pointless to argue whether three charactrs are enough but just one is not, and how significant it has to be, without comparing it to the situation in some of the "less" LGBT-related shows in the category. (BTW, related to this, it would be nice if someone (Pyxis Solitary ?) added LGBT content+refs if such an editor believes it is missing in the article.) On the other hand, if we want to discuss what the category should or should not include (what it "should mean"), to (re)define it, to set criteria, this Talk:Game of Thrones is not a place to do so. --WikiHannibal (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, without a shadow of doubt GOT is way "less LGBT-related" than many shows on the category, you can't disagree with that even if you think it should remain, that's saying though, I don't think this is a good standard, if there are shows with the same or more issues to be put in the category, it would much more appropriate to remove them as well rather than keep GOT, but that should be discussed on their respective talk pages, not here. 179.182.131.253 15:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, "if some of the shows already included are apparently "less" LGBT-related, GoT should be included in the category". Whether "GOT is way "less LGBT-related" than many shows on the category", as you claim, is irrelevant. It does not have to be among these "many shows". To be included it is enough to be among some of those least LGBT-related that are in the category. --WikiHannibal (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Only shows in which LGBT is a defining topic should be added, and LGBT is not a defining topic of Game of Thrones. 179.182.131.253 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Look, we have already separated the two issues, and I thought that you agreed they are separate: it is one thing what the category SHOULD INCLUDE, and that is not the topic of this discussion (and I would welcome if someone defined the criteria, got a consensus on the criteria, went through the shows marking which criteria this or that show meets, and preferably afer a consensus removed/included the articles accordingly). Another thing is whether GoT is similar to the shows which the category INCLUDES now, so that it can or cannot be included as well, and this is what are discussing here. So your prescriptive point of view ("Only shows in which LGBT is a defining topic should be added") has to be applied to the whole category. And do not get me wrong, I in fact do not care whether GoT is or is not included, in the end. All I care is for some consistency and predictability concerning the present usage of categories. Also, since it seems to me that this discussion with you is going in circles, I will not react to this "defining topic"-issue anymore... WikiHannibal (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

According to a feature in The Advocate published 2017-07-17, there have been 11 LGBT characters in GoT: Yara Greyjoy, Brienne of Tarth, Arya Stark, Daenerys Targaryen, Renly Baratheon, Hodor, Ellaria Sand, Lord Varys, and Olyvar.
According to Pink News, the best LGBT scenes have been in Season 1, episode 2: "The Kingsroad" (Daenerys & Doreah), Season 1, episode 5: "The Wolf and the Lion" and Season 2, episode 3: "What is Dead May Never Die" (Loras Tyrell & Renly Baratheon), Season 3, episode 5: "Kissed by Fire" and Season 5, episode 1: "The Wars to Come" (Loras & Olyvar), Season 4, episode 1: "Two Swords" and Season 4, episode 3: "Breaker of Chains" (Oberyn Martell & Ellaria Sand), Season 6, episode 7: "The Broken Man" (Yara Greyjoy and brothel prostitute), Season 6, episode 9: "Battle of the Bastards" (Daenerys and Yara), Season 7, episode 2: "Stormborn" (Ellaria & Yara).
Vulture published an article on June 28, 2016 titled Game of Thrones Has a Gay Problem.
Seek and you shall find. If I can, so can other editors more familiar with the series (yourself included). Pyxis Solitary talk 00:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that based on the current category definition GoT qualifies as as LGBT related, I don't think The Advocate or similar publications can be considered reliable sources here. The list they compiled seems false or at the very least highly speculative (based on highly personal interpretations rather than explicit character descriptions/behaviours). Lord Varys is in fact described almost explicitly as asexual (he says so himself in a conversation with Oberyn). There is also nothing in the series that really allows to conclude that Brienne, Arya, Hodor or Danaerys are are gay or bisexual.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The only characters on this list who are actually LGBT are Yara, Renly, Ellaria, and Olyvar, Loras and Oberyn are missing, but yet characters who are not LGBT are present, this source doesn't look credible. 186.213.62.232 20:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If LGBT themes are being chronicled outside of Wikipedia — and there are Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual themes and characters in GoT — it can't be ignored in Wikipedia's main article.

• 2015: Game of Thrones’ Anti-Gay Fanatics
• 2015: Kit Harington Talks ‘Game Of Thrones’ Sexuality Spectrum And The Homoerotic Night’s Watch
• 2015: How “Game of Thrones” ruined Loras Tyrell: HBO’s “gay cartoon” is so much more in the books.
• 2016: Game Of Thrones Made Coming Out NBD Last Night.
• 2017: What we learnt from the new Game of Thrones trailer: Daenerys plans her domination, a new lesbian power couple, and is that Jorah?. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: If a source lists Varys as an LGBT character, that just means the source is wrong, and is therefore probably unreliable for the claim that this or that other character is LGBT, even if such a claim might actually be true. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:Renly is in two seasons and Oberyn in one. And while it is true that they are not around for all or most season, they are "significant"/major characters in the season they appear in. Renly is even an early major contender for the thrown. So imho it certainly matches the curreht definition of the category and it's use in practice.

Whether that definition and practice is appropriate is something that should be discussed at the category pages itself (as WikiHannibal has pointed out)--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Oberyn's bisexuality was a peripheral element of his character in the show, and Renly, while his role in the story may have been significant, as a character in the series (let alone as a gay character in the series) he was a very minor player in season one (I think his screentime amounted to less than 15 minutes total out of more than eight hours); he then returned for two brief scenes in season two before being killed off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• TV shows who were previously in the LGBT-related category or specific categories where removed because LGBT was not a defining topic of it, why is Game of Thrones still being kept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.207.101.157 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it appears to have become a battleground for some larger issue or agenda relating to LGBT-related categories, and while it clearly violates WP:CATDEF, the removal of a single category is not worth the headache of engaging in such a "battle". Perhaps an RfC is appropriate, if someone cares enough to start one. Cjhard (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Why has the Category:Incest in television been acceptable? Does incest define the series? Where is incest included in the main article? Does Category:Television series with multiple main characters define the series? Don't many television series have several main characters, some introduced and others departing by seasons? Pyxis Solitary talk 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Should Game of Thrones be in the LGBT-related category?

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

---

Should this article be in the "LGBT-related" category? 02:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• No - Game of Thrones is "LGBT-related", but it's not a defining characteristic of Game of Thrones. Reliable sources do not "commonly and consistently define" Game of Thrones as LGBT-related. The abuse of this category to include articles where the television program has gay background characters is the reason WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing. LGBT people are increasingly represented in the media, so if the existence of gay side characters is enough to include a television program in the LGBT-related category, the category loses all utility. That's why categories are supposed to be about defining characteristics of a television show, per WP:CATDEFINING. Cjhard (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - The series has several LGBT characters (past and present). So far: Renly Baratheon, Loras Tyrell, Oberyn Martell, Lord Varys, Olyvar, Ellaria Sand, Yara Greyjoy. The failure to not include mentions of LGBT themes and characters in the main article is problematic, considering that there is ample media coverage about it. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• No Virtually all of LGBT characters in the show are bit players, or their LGBT status is questionable (Varys comes to mind -- his asexuality is his defining characteristic, and as far as I can recall the only reference to him being gay was a line by Littlefinger accusing him of being a gay pedophile). It can't be seen as a defining characteristic of the show when its sprawling cast actually includes proportionally fewer gay characters than a random sample of any real world population. And the sources don't help: a brief Googling of "is game of thrones an lgbt show" brought up a few websites listing their favourite LGBT characters characters and LGBT-themed scenes (most of which were incidental to the show itself) and articles like this and this, which if anything imply the answer to be "No." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• No - LGBT is not a defining topic of Game of Thrones, there are very few LGBT characters in the show, this a show with a huge number of characters, if it actually was LGBT-related, there would be at least more LGBT characters, and none of the LGBT characters are important, and there are also only a few LGBT scenes on the show, this is also a show that is rather infamous for its sex scenes, so if indeed was LGBT-related, there would be at least more LGBT scenes, and also, shows that once were in the LGBT-related category were removed because LGBT was not a defining topic of it, so why should Game of Thrones remain on that category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.207.15.202 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic

177.207.15.202. If you had backbone you would go on the record with a user name. You can edit pages anonymously, and you can be a sockpuppet, but come out of hiding when it's about consensus. 2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC) 177.207.15.202., which "shows that once were in the LGBT-related category were removed" and by whom? That is quite an obscure statement to be presented as evidence.--WikiHannibal (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - at present the category includes many shows with a seemingly comparable or weaker "relation" to LGBT. The definition of the category ("deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device") is applied only loosely. (= My opinion based on the articles of several shows included in the category.) The best way would be to broaden the definition or make it more precise, and keep/remove shows that do no conform to the new definition, and only after that decide whether GoT is in or not. --WikiHannibal (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, this is an "other stuff exists" argument. The misuse of the category on other articles (I removed it from Ren and Stimpy) is not reason to misuse it here. Cjhard (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You have already mentioned that in your first contribution to this new discussion, and, as such, I have read that. Why are you bringing it up again as an off-topic comment? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says, among others, "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." "Other stuff" is not automatically "wrong". It seems to me you are trying to misinterpret it, using it as an argument to support your position without seeing the problem in a neutral way. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• No - LGBT is not a defining feature of Game of Thrones, there are some gay characters in the show, and some ambiguous characters but this a show with 100s of characters. I think the OTHERSTUFF argument is being properly applied here and wonder how many RS comment much on the LGBT element of the show. Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I've never seen Game of Thrones so I'm just considering this from the point of view that this is an encyclopaedic article, and we should follow Wikipedia's guidelines. My first thought was that, as a TV show, the sexuality of its characters is irrelevant, in the same way that heterosexuality is not considered notable (I doubt that there is even a WP category for heterosexuality). However, a quick search for game of thrones lgbt turned up this Independent article, the opening paragraph of which states, "My problem isn’t so much that same-sex loving characters don’t get a happy ending on Game of Thrones. No one really does. But same-sex love is treated as a plot device on this show". If same-sex love is treated as a plot device, and this fact is reflected in reliable sources, then it seems to me that it does indeed pass Wikipedia:Notability and should therefore be included in the "LGBT-related" category. I would have added my support but, as I say, I've never seen the show. I just think that those who have voted should consider this. As an aside, as someone who supports freedom of sexual orientation I think it's rather sad that we even bother to apply such labels, but what do I know? nagualdesign 20:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment

@Nagualdesign: Re labels: I 'hear' you. Specifying that someone is a "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual", or "transgender" is today disliked by many members of the LGBT community, and if your familiarity with LGBT + labels is based on what you hear and read nowadays, you'd think that everyone in the community is marching to the same tune. The word "fluid" has become popular. The acronym "Q" for queer has been added to the alphabet soup. Yet saying that you or someone is "fluid" ... is a label. Saying you, someone, or something is "queer" is using a label. When you include a distinguishing characteristic about yourself to describe who or what you are, you're using one or more labels. You're a female? Female = label. A brunette? / Brunette = label. Someone says they're Korean, Mexican, Italian, or British, etc. / Korean, Mexican, Italian, or British, etc. = labels. You tell others you're a Christian / Christian = label. Atheist? / Atheist = label. Etc., etc., ad infinitum. Those of us who are LGBT will simply never be the same as heterosexuals in a predominantly heterosexual society. And every society on earth is predominantly heterosexual. Some of us stand out, some of us blend in. But all of us are still subjects of overt or masked discrimination. And in many countries around the world we are persecuted ... and murdered because we are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. (Lesbians are targets of corrective rape because they're not viewed as "normal" by those who hunt them. Gay men are still murdered for being gay. Transgender women and men are not safe anywhere.) So, I'm on the side that supports pointing out when an L/G/B/T character is included in a series and when a series includes LGBT characters, because they're not included in every series. And many series are broadcast internationally and watched by viewers from around the world, and those viewers often want to learn more about what they've seen in the series. Labels = visibility. (P.S. A song for: labels.)  :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 05:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Listening to this now... Who doesn't enjoy a bit of James Brown, eh? Classic. Slightly off-topic, I know, but since I enjoy introducing people to new music, if you haven't heard of him already try a little John Grant on for size: Queen of Denmark. Labels: Homosexual, HIV-positive, effortlessly smooth nagualdesign 20:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) The link is geoblocked on my end. But I watched the Strongroom Sessions video. I wanted to change the world, but I could not even change my underwear. Damn. Okay ... now my friends are gonna get spammed with it. :-D Pyxis Solitary talk 12:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No - LGBT rights are never mentioned in the show.--Moxy (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. It has nothing to do with "LGBT rights". It's about inclusion of L or G or B or T characters, and having characters that are not all 100% straight, and portrayals of relationships and/or sexual encounters that are not exclusively heteronormative. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Every TV show has us in them now...so by your logic every show show be listed. Just not what we are looking for in the cats for LGBT. We are looking for socially relevant shows for inclusion. We are not just looking for the Robin of every show. --Moxy (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"We are looking for socially relevant shows". That's your personal spin. And what is or isn't relevant is subjective.
"Every TV show has us in them now..." You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. It is a falsehood to say that "every TV show" includes LGBT characters today. Excerpts from GLAAD's Where We Are on TV Report - 2017:

1. Of the 901 regular characters expected to appear on broadcast scripted primetime programming this season, 58 (6.4%) were identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer.
2. The number of regular LGBTQ characters counted on scripted primetime cable increased to 103, and recurring characters increased to 70, making for 173 characters.
3. There were 51 LGBTQ regular characters counted in original scripted series on the streaming services Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix as well as 19 recurring characters. This is an increase of five total characters from last year’s 65 total LGBTQ characters.
4. Bisexual+ characters make up 28 percent of the LGBTQ characters tracked across all platforms.
5. This year, there are 17 regular and recurring transgender characters tracked across all three platforms. Of those, nine are trans women, four are trans men, and four are non-binary.
6. For the first time since GLAAD has started this report, we were able to count asexual characters.

In 2015, there were over 1,400 primetime series on television. Of this total, 412 were "original scripted series". Doing the math isn't complicated: there weren't LGBT characters included in 1,400+ TV shows and in 412 scripted series in 2015 — and they aren't included in all TV shows and scripted series today, either. The only "logic" of my argument is that if a series includes LGBT characters (main or recurring) or has a subplot that includes one or more, it should be included in the narrative about the series. When editors deliberately exclude factual content that can be sourced, it's a decision based on a personal point of view. That editing attitude is the antithesis of Wikipedia's purpose. You have the right to voice an opinion about LGBT characters in television ... but please don't b.s. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, while I agree with User:Moxy's answer to the question, I don't know if I would agree that the rationale should be that "LGBT rights" are not mentioned in the show; if the show actually used those exact words it would the blatant anachronism would get even the "lol dragonz" crowd to drop it, but if I recall correctly, a season three episode in which Joffrey and Margaery discuss Renly did include a really blatant/out-of-place/anachronistic/shoehorned-in reference to the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (Ctrl+F this "punishable by death", which would make sense if the boy delivering it wasn't legally permitted within the setting to punish anything by death -- a right he exercised frequently). The problem is, though, that this is entirely OR; I don't recall any secondary sources interpreting the obvious reference to the then-topical real-world political controversy. If such references were frequent (as in, at least once per episode) and were covered in reliable secondary sources, I might have a different answer to the RFC question, but as is... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't read that as about the Uganda law specifically. Sadly, punishing homosexuality by death has not been limited to modern Uganda. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read ASOS, but neither of the characters present in the scene are POV characters, so it would seem it was an early instance of the "extra" scenes not in the books, and the episode itself aired right around the time the then-proposed bill was being widely discussed in American news media (due largely to support expressed by various American evangelical missionaries for the bill): the bill was specifically noted in said American news media for its "making" homosexual acts "punishable by death" (Joffrey's words), since even though Uganda has always had capital punishment, in modern Uganda (like just about everywhere else) it's only technically allowed under various specifically defined circumstances. "Making something punishable by death" would make no sense in the context of Westeros as Joffrey already had the authority to punish just about anything by death; it was really frickin' obvious in its original context, so I don't doubt that sources specifically saying so could be found (actually strike that -- if individual GOT episodes were as widely and deeply covered in reliable secondary sources as some Wikipedians seem to think, such sources could definitely be found), but it wouldn't make the show an LGBT-themed show, just one in which an issue of contemporary LGBT rights was alluded to in a single episode. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter has a LGBT character, does this mean that Harry Potter is LGBT-related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.207.68.79 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think what's going on here is that, until a few years ago, just having a prominent LGBT character who wasn't a throwaway joke was so strange and so noticeable that it would merit saying the show was about LGBT issues. Renly and Loras and Oberin and Yara aren't throwaway joke characters. Is that enough now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Books aside, the bisexual natures of Oberyn, Ellaria and Yara were all essentially throwaway jokes in the show: Oberyn's bisexuality was alluded to in one comedic scene in season four, and one comedic line in season six; Ellaria too, just replace "six" with "seven", and perhaps mention that her driving motivation is revenge for her heterosexual life partner; and Yara's bisexuality was played for laughs in one brief scene in season six and one brief scene in season seven. Loras's (and Renly's) gayness is played up quite a bit in the show relative to the books, to the point where GRRM has said in interviews that fans expressed surprise that the character's sexuality was "changed" for the show, but in the show they are both very minor characters, even if neither of them are very comedic. So what we're left with is a show that actually comes from the new era in which LGBT characters are not bit players and one-off jokes, but essentially treats its LGBT characters this way anyway. Again, this is all OR, but the secondary sources that have been cited seem to by-and-large agree. We shouldn't be using "LGBT-related" as a defining cat for this show just because it has some characters who may or may not have been treated as bisexual in some of their appearances, or gay characters who played extremely minor roles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not see the treatment of Yara love for women or Oberyn's bisexuality as any more trivial than the treatment of Tyrion's heterosexuality. This show just throws sex around a lot no matter the gender of the participants. (The issue of whether Oberyn should be called a heterosexual life partner just because he is a bisexual man who ended up with a woman is a much deeper issue and should be discussed elsewhere. For now, I'll say I disagree and let's leave it at that.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

I may be misremembering season four (which I only watched twice), but if I recall correctly Oberyn's interest in men was referenced once in a joke-y scene in which he implied he wanted to sleep with Olyvar (a bit character whose bisexuality was mentioned in season five in a somewhat more serious, though laughably anachronistic and clumsy, scene in which it is implied that the only way a man could know about the birthmark of another man of noble birth would be by sleeping him, rather than, say, having had a drunken gossip session with any of the multitude of people involved in dressing or bathing him), and then once more in a joke-y line about how he had loved many women -- and men? yes, and men -- two seasons later. Yara's love for women was an afterthought thrown in in season six (it was not alluded to at any point before this, and does not apparently come from the books) and was apparently there only for her to make a jab at her brother (which could have been meant to be played for laughs or not -- I honestly read Yara's lines as being meant to be humorous, even if Theon's reaction was not), and was followed up by a similar scene the following season. Anyway, I did not mean to imply that I thought Oberyn "was heterosexual" or anything of the sort; I merely meant to use the word to mean "of the opposite sex (from Ellaria)" -- in the show at least, Ellaria's defining characteristic is her love for Oberyn and desire to avenge his death, and it would be really easy for a casual viewer who wasn't looking for LGBT themes in the show to simply forget that she and Oberyn weren't simply two heterosexual characters. (And yes, all of these characters are extremely minor in the show overall -- the above joke-y exchange between Doran and Ellaria ended with Ellaria killing Doran in a clumsy attempt to sweep the entire Dornish storyline under the rug because it had been poorly received; she and the Sand Snakes having only a few more brief appearances before themselves being killed off was obviously another result of this.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC) I'd also like it noted that I feel really, really uncomfortable with any insinuation that I am making common cause with Game of Thrones fan-boys who are arguing against "SJW" editors trying to PC-ify this and other popular culture articles. I have consistently been on the "other side" of such debates whenever they have happened, and in this case I just don't like the inclusion of OR conclusions that this is an LGBT-themed show simply because there have been a few minor LGBT characters and a few slightly more important characters whose sexuality changed between seasons or was played off as a joke and otherwise had no role in the show. So I would appreciate if you would stop reading into my comments things that aren't there, like my calling Oberyn "heterosexual" when in context it should have been clear that I was merely saying he was of the opposite gender to his only prominent fictional romantic partner -- saying that is clearly not the same as trying to "box" real-world bisexual individuals into "heterosexual" identity just because they wind up marrying someone of the opposite sex. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Forget it. DF24's comments that aren't direct responses to mine indicate that they actually agree with me on the only issue that matters here, so there's really no point arguing. I don't like how my comments were interpreted, but I can understand why. This is clearly an explosive issue, and I'd really rather remove myself from it as soon as possible rather than keep this back-and-forth up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

1) The ultimate authority on what Hijiri meant when Hijiri said something is Hijiri. 2) Uh, you and I agree on what? I've lost track. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I added the following paragraph to the top of this RfC, which Hijiri88 subsequently removed:

From Category:LGBT-related television programs: This category includes television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming which deal with or feature lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues. They may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device. For television programming that feature LGBT characters and episodes see Lists of television programs with LGBT characters.

It was meant only as an aid to discussion since, as I see it, some of those who have voted so far are basing their vote solely on their own opinion, rather that looking at the evidence. At the moment the top of the section only says, "Should this article be in the "LGBT-related" category?" And there is no mention as to what that entails. Really, nobody's opinion should matter with something like this. All you need ask yourselves is what are the criteria for adding articles to that category? and does this article fulfil those criteria?

@Hijiri88: You're right, I shouldn't have used the word policy in my edit summary, but the quoted section isn't "a sloppily vague/open list of the inclusion criteria for the cat in question" either. As I understand it describes what sort of articles are included in the category, and I know of no other description. It works for both readers, to help find the things they're looking for, and editors, to decide whether an article fits the bill. Unless you wish to rewrite it, then go through the list to see if all the articles meet your new criteria, I suggest we stick to using it as it's written/intended. And when you wrote, "Quoting it in the RFC question is going to bias future responses", correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you think people will start voting the other way. Your labelling of that as 'bias', when all I did was quote the guidelines (or whatever the term is), sounds like you don't want people to apply the actual criteria.

This should really have been an open and shut case. Along with the criteria shown above the question should be, as always, are there reliable secondary sources to back it up? If the answer is yes you add it to the category, if not you don't. What people feel about it, or how strong those feelings are, is irrelevant, surely? Also, what's the big deal about adding it anyway? The idea of categories is to help people find stuff. Including or omitting this one item shouldn't be that big of a deal. nagualdesign 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: Sorry to be late replying. I was ... delayed. Anyway, I have serious questions about whether the "LGBT-related" category should even exist if it has the kind of clumsy inclusion criteria you quote. The fact that there is no Category:American LGBT-themed television shows, and that the only LGBT categories in which Will & Grace and similar shows are included all use the same "related" language, implies to me that Category:American LGBT-related television shows is actually meant to be for shows where LGBT themes are prominent enough to be mentioned somewhere in the body of the main article. (If we don't have distinct categories for shows that definitely are LGBT-themed, then using the "LGBT-related" categories to smash LGBT-themed shows in with shows like this that happen to include some mostly very minor characters whom some fans would like to think are gay would be inappropriate -- where do we go to find shows that are actually LGBT-themed?) In this case, however, even the supposedly LGBT characters (who, again, have been inconsistently portrayed throughout the show's history) are all so minor as not to be mentioned anywhere in the article -- Oberyn, Yara, Loras and Renly are not, Ellaria probably shouldn't be given how she had only a few cameo appearances in seasons five and six, and was quickly killed off in season seven, and Varys is not LGBT. Again, we must question how "reliable" the "secondary sources" you are referring to are when they get details like these so very wrong, and even those that do get the details right and probably are reliable all seem to conveniently fail to define GOT as an LGBT-related show. And no, you should not be attempting to recontextualize the RFC question in order to agree with the idiosyncratic opinion you had already expressed -- everyone else seems to agree with my interpretation of how the cat should be used. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I enjoyed the video of Gandalf partying, and you make a few good points. Perhaps you and others ought to rewrite the paragraph I quoted to remove any ambiguity. What I don't appreciate is your final point, "you should not be attempting to recontextualize the RFC question in order to agree with the idiosyncratic opinion you had already expressed". Please remember to assume good faith. I made no attempt to recontextualize the RfC. All I did was provide the current criteria for inclusion in the category, which you and others seem not to have applied, and I certainly didn't do it to agree with myself. If I'd had a strong opinion one way or other I would have voted already, and my previous comment was that we should follow Wikipedia's guidelines. If you think that's idiosyncratic then you've misunderstood my intentions. nagualdesign 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to come off as assuming bad faith. What I meant is that you (like anyone) can subconsciously allow your biases to creep in when writing stuff like that, hence why RFC questions are always supposed to be short, to-the-point, and as near to completely objective as possible. I would honestly prefer that RFCs never be opened unless the question wording is already agreed upon by all disputants beforehand (a philosophy that is not widely shared, causing me no end of problems back in 2014-2015), but failing that simply asking "Should the page be in the category, yes or no?" is best. I don't want to reword your paragraph, as I don't agree with its premise: quoting an inclusion criterion that doesn't make sense and that few editors would likely agree with if they knew all the facts (again, see the Will & Grace article) is likely to bias commenters one way, and explaining all the facts is likely to bias them the other way.

I apologize for misreading your own earlier comment as expressing a strong opinion one way or the other, but I disagree with your interpretation of what "follow Wikipedia's guidelines" should mean in this case, since the guidelines as you quoted them clearly are not widely agreed upon or applied, and are, IMO, out of line with one of our core policies: WP:SYNTH tells us not to get a bunch of sources that say this or that fictional character in a TV show is gay or bisexual, and extrapolate from that that the TV show itself is "LGBT-related", and it doesn't matter that "-related" can be (and currently is, project-wide) interpreted as synonymous with "-themed" but technically could have a broader definition.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, you're making some fair points. In fact, you're repeating the same points, and there's no need. When you say, "I don't want to reword your paragraph" I think maybe you've missed my point. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you reword what I posted (you should never reword someone else's posts), I was suggesting you reword the paragraph at its source in order to avoid this sort of confusion over ambiguity in future. If what you are saying is correct then you ought to update the "sloppily vague/open list of the inclusion criteria" to reflect that. After all, we don't want our users wondering why certain articles have been omitted because the real criteria are not available. nagualdesign 02:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak no. LGBT themes and characters appear in Game of Thrones, but I struggle to see them as a defining characteristic of the show. AdA&D ☆ 14:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The season articles are using both prose summaries and episode tables

I believe this goes against MOS:TVPLOT, which states that an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary and that season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode, or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Has this been previously discussed? Is there any reason why these plot sections should not be immediately removed from the articles? -- Radiphus 13:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

They should not be immediately as their inclusion is more beneficial to the reader than their absence. A thought out approach should be taken. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't that be said for any other show? Is there something that makes Game of Thrones special, so that TVPLOT does not apply? -- Radiphus 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC) New text (1): Since no user has argued against the removal of this content after 3 days, and taking into account the consensus on which the guidelines were created, i have removed the plot sections from seasons 1-6 articles (season 7 didn't have one, as it should). -- Radiphus 14:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC) New text (2): On December 30, 2017, Jclemens reverted these changes stating in their edit summary that consenus favors both in this article (referring to prose and tabular format). The discussion remains open for anyone who might want to express their opinion on this issue. -- Radiphus 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

List vs. Category

Some of this article's editors need to learn the difference between a list and a category. They are not the same. Per MOS:SEEALSO:

• "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

The Oxford definition of tangentially:

• "In a way that relates only slightly to a matter; peripherally".

Deleting a section and list content that complies with MOS is definitely a problem that is detrimental to the purpose of having a Wikipedia article and to its readers. No editor in this or any other article has Ownership of content. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted twice by the same editor: 1 + 2. The third time becomes WP:EDITWAR. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pyxis, this is becoming tiresome. I strongly oppose the addition of these lists in the see also section. Cjhard (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• The relation to "LGBT" would be best introduced by adding a neutral and well-sourced paragraph to the article. See also and categories should only follow. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It was already explained many times on this talk page that LGBT is not a defining topic of Game of Thrones, wrong categorizations should not change the definition of any category, also, why put such emphasis when it's such an unimportant theme in the series, and as far as I know, even in shows where LGBT is a much more important theme than in GOT, they don't put these lists, what's the point in adding them to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.198.19 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with User:WikiHannibal. There's enough sources available to support a paragraph about the gay, bisexual, and lesbian content seen in the show (such as a, b, c). Oberyn and Ellaria are bisexual in the novels and tv series. Renly and Loras are explicitly gay in the series, and Lady Olenna accepts her grandson's homosexuality. Loras is persecuted by the Faith Militant because of his sexual preference. Asha Greyjoy, renamed Yara, is portrayed as lesbian in the series (I'll buy her being pansexual when she's shown with women, men, androgynes, CDs, and TSs). In the novels and series, the people of Dorne tolerate same-sex lovers and relationships. Daenerys is bisexual in the novels, but not yet portrayed the same on tv. Some character pages include their sexual orientation. At a minimum, adding a paragraph about it is reasonable. 2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just because a show has LGBT characters doesn't automatically make it LGBT-related, LGBT has to be a defining topic of it, also, we are discussing about the show, not the books, there are many differences between them, so even if, for example, a LGBT character in the books but not in the show, such character will not be counted as a LGBT character in this discussion, the fact that Dorne is tolerant of homosexuality is irrelevant, as for Loras and the Faith Militant, this was all a plan by Cersei to take on the Tyrells, this argument would apply if, for example, he was outed because someone hated the fact that he was homosexual, but this wasn't the reason, also, just because some editor on a site thinks that it is LGBT-related doesn't make it so, there's no reason to put a paragraph about this nor is there any reason to place this show in the LGBT-related category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.198.19 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You repeat the same claims of yours over and over again, please stop spamming. --WikiHannibal (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You oppose LGBT categories. You oppose LGBT lists. You oppose a paragraph regarding LGBT subjects in the series. A paragraph about LGBT in the series doesn't make LGBT a "defining topic" about the series. This opposition is looking a lot like homophobia to me. 2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, What's the point in adding LGBT lists or a paragraph about LGBT if a series isn't LGBT-related? It seems to me you just can't address what I said so you come up with accusations of homophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.134.209.48 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest someone finds some sources that discuss the LGBT elements of, or characters in, the show, otherwise it would be WP:OR. The series is pretty frank about its depictions of sex(uality), but we can't engage in writing our own analyses. Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"I suggest someone finds some sources that discuss the LGBT elements of, or characters in, the show, otherwise it would be WP:OR."
Between this discussion and the ones above re the same matter, I counted a total of 15 linked sources. You don't need psychic divination to predict what the next objection will be: "the sources aren't reliable, credible, accurate, trustworthy, believable, verifiable, convincing, ..........". Pyxis Solitary talk 20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the 5 or 6 sources I looked at above aren't the greatest and don't say much about gay people in GoT, but it doesn't take psychic powers to foresee that the LEVEL of coverage is small relative to the probably 10s of 1000s of pieces written about GoT. This is the main page and it is inevitable and right that the coverage here is proportionate to that in the best sources. I only came here for the RfC, but in my trawl around the dozens of sub-pages, I noticed that (for example) the pre-battle 'action' of Yara Greyjoy is not even mentioned. Pincrete (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There are more than 5 or 6. Saying that "I looked at above aren't the greatest and don't say much about gay people in GoT" is smoke and mirrors, because the requirement of WP:RELIABLE is that "articles should be based on reliable, published sources", and what the guidelines states about them is:

* "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people... The reliability of a source depends on context...editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible...Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Have you read WP:RSE?

By the way, have you taken a look at the sources that have been used in the article? There's: Not a Blog (a LiveJournal blog), Infinity Plus, Universitas (a student newspaper), A Song of Ice and Fire.Westeros forum, YouTube, Westeros.org, GoldDerby, GamesRadar, Fashionista, Female First, WinterIsComing.net, Decider, Geeksugar, and Cinemablend scattered among them. Are these sources that meet the requirements in WP:RELIABLE, or are they (one or more) considered unreliable? Are you familiar with WP:NOYT (re YouTube) and the guideline for blogs as sources?

Re "I noticed that (for example) the pre-battle 'action' of Yara Greyjoy is not even mentioned."
It is the responsibility of editors to include and update factual information about characters. That GoT editors have not included the fact that Yara has now been shown as being sexually interested in females — and that the actress that plays the character said in a 2016 Vulture interview that she considers Yara pansexual because "[she's] up for anything." — is either an oversight or a deliberate exclusion. I'm sure that those who are fans of GoT and follow the series closely are aware of the sites that deal with the series, and this fact about Yara has been covered in them, like this one and this one. GoT editors reading this now, including you, should edit the character page and include this about her (even if they and you have to bite the bullet and hold noses while doing so). Pyxis Solitary talk 04:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Are you aware that the "LiveJournal blog" you refer to above is the official blog of the author of the work in question? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit bodly. It is nonsence to write "GoT editors reading this now, including you, should edit the character page and include this about her", if you meant that seriously. As far as I follow the discussion, nobody is going to write that. I noticed your scepticism about how a paragraph on LGBT in GoT would be recieved but unless someone tries, discussing categories and lists is controversial, and trying to make some else edit something is futile. BTW I think several other editors expressed the same view, i.e. that some info in the article itself should come first. I does not have to be a whole paragprah, only one or two summarizing sentences, if you prefer. --WikiHannibal (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant it, because I don't watch GoT, and those who are more familiar with this series should rise to the challenge. Someone in another discussion said that editors who aren't familiar with a series contribute content that is based on reliable secondary sources and thereby more trustworthy, compared to editors who rely too much on primary material and personal memory which can result in OR and POV. In my playbook, if I find that something is missing in an article ... I add it. I do the homework and contribute content. But, in my opinion, this article has become a hornet's nest with the over-protection by some editors that push the boundaries of WP:OWN. Pyxis Solitary talk 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a bit misleading and frankly sometimes you see a secondary sources formalism that comes close to idiocy. Ideally the editors should have done both, that is having seen the series and having read the secondary sources. In particular for tv series and movies there are a lot of "low quality" secondary sources which can misread/misunderstood. I've seen plot descriptions for movies assembled from secondary sources which were completely off. Not just by matter of nuances or personal emphasis or preference but off as in describing a basic plot that simply doesn't exist in the movie. This is due misreading secondary sources and not being aware of that due to not having seen the movie. For instance the description in a "low quality" secondary source can be sloppy and/or imprecise. Additional (background) information provided in a secondary source can be misread as being part of the movie plot and similar stuff.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my point: the editors who watch GoT should have contributed content about the individuals that have been portrayed as lesbian, gay, and bisexual, and how these characters and their stories have affected the plot. Ignoring it cannot continue. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Please stop insinuating, as the last sentence of the above comment does, that there is some deliberate attempt to whitewash the role of "LGBT characters" (a term that apparently includes asexual eunuchs, at least you have been using it on this page) in this article. The simple fact is that the show is inconsistent and clumsy when it comes to characters' sexuality: Yara's being bisexual was never stated directly (and was apparently shoehorned in so that she could have a lesbian kiss in the latest season; and perhaps as an apology for at least one bisexual character having previously had that aspect of her character expunged), and the other characters you listed mostly either had their being bisexual mentioned in an off-handed joke that they don't care which gender prostitute they pay for or some such or had a sexual orientation that played no role in the plot whatsoever because they themselves were very minor characters. Renly and Loras were boh portrayed as unambiguously gay, but it was only obvious in a throwaway filler scene (it was literally invented to give the actors more screentime, and was not in the books, where their sexuality played no role in the story, to the point where only very close readers were even aware that they were gay; and Renly was a very minor character who killed off almost immediately anyway. So what do you want us to include in this article? It seems you haven't read any of the far-too-long plot summaries in any of our 67 individual episode articles; the plot details in the main article on the series must, by necessity, be kept to a minimum. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, any source that lists Varys as an LGBT character (as Pyxis has done several times) is either an extremely bad secondary source that completely misunderstood his character, or is a tertiary source that misunderstood something in a secondary source and didn't check it against the show itself, or is using some sort of weird, overly-broad-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless definition of "LGBT" that includes asexual eunuchs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

LGBTQIA

Why is there no section referencing LGBTQIA?

It's important part of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.69.196 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Under ADA this article may be ILLEGAL.