Talk:Game of Thrones

American Show?

It seems to me that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and that one of the principles is that facts be verifiable outside Wikipedia, and that facts be cited. Claims about the nationality of Game of Thrones need references. Lee.Sailer (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this an American show? If so, it needs to be stated in the introduction just like other similar shows. Keep in mind that the nationality of a show is dependent on the national origin of the production company. --Brickcity55 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Both in general and as applied to this series? How can a TV series even be said to have a "nationality"? It's a creative work, not a person. People have nationalities, but creative works such as books, songs or films don't. The lead says it was made for a U.S. channel, isn't that clear enough?  Sandstein  22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Brickcity, the polite thing to do is to wait until discussion is over, not restore the contested piece of information then start a discussion, and it apparently is contested. Nationality does not have to be in the lede at all and other articles doing it is not an excuse, especially when it is contested, also you give no evidence that nationality belongs to the production company, infobox television merely says the shows country of origin, which is completely useless as an instruction. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No darkwarrior, the polite thing for you to do is to keep calm and not catch an attitude. I don't have the time for it and it is not proper behavior for this forum, so calm down. Wikipedia calls for consistency so that is why I recommended the changes. You will not find other popular shows without country of origin in the lead. However, if you want to be inconsistent that is on you. I couldn't care less.--Brickcity55 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone changed the introduction to read that GoT is a British/American show. This is both false and misleading so I changed it back. The show originated in America and is produced by the American company HBO. This isn't a nationalistic thing as I'm Canadian. I just can't stand inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickcity55 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone has once again changed the introduction to read British/American. It is safe to say the page is being vandalize. --Brickcity55 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism Notice

Someone keeps changing the intro to read British/American show as opposed to American show. There is no proof of this as of yet as HBO owns and produces the show. I will change it back. --Brickcity55 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) People making changes you disagree with is not vandalism. It may, however, be edit-warring. I'm still of the opinion that it makes little sense to label this as an "American", "British" or "British/American" series. First, we have no sources calling it any of this, second, works don't have nationalities, and third, there are many people from many countries involved. I'll ask for a third opinion.  Sandstein  15:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sand stein I don't have a problem not listing an origin of a show in the lead. I just thing the same should be applied to all movies and tv shows across the board. HBO is the company that owns the piece, produces the pieces, and makes decisions about the piece. I'm not sure what the confusion seems to be about. It seems as though people pick and choose what guidelines they follow --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If we start going by who directs, does the writing, makeup, set production, acts ect. then pretty much all shows and movies should have origin removed from the article. Editors should just do a sweeping removal of any mention of country of origin in any and all articles. If a German guy does the set lighting, who is to say it is not a German show, and if an Australian is the production assistant-- is the show not equally Australian? --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that mods are in danger if opening Pandora's box wider than it has ever been opened before.--Brickcity55 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Walking Dead currently has 3 British actors in main roles. If two season from now every main role was played by a British actor, would the show be British American? These are issues that Wikipedia has to handle if decisions are made on the whole of the production and not the owner of the production. --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting argument --Dookiebot (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A Neutral Third Opinion: This seems pretty straightforward to me. The show comes from the United States that makes it an American show. However I don't think it's necessary to say so in the lead. The information is already in the infobox. The nationalities of the actors etc. do not matter, it's an American show. James Bond movies are full of British actors, but it's still an American franchise. It's simply an American franchise about British people. Try to keep things civil and not edit-war. --Sue Rangell 01:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sue, you should look for my opinion above. Wp calls for consistency and should stand for that above all. An action in one should be an action in all.--Brickcity55 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sue. Brickcity, no, Wikipedia does not require consistency above all, at least not if there is no manual of style recommendation. In the instant case, it's just redundant and poor writing to say: "... is an American series ... by the U.S. channel HBO". I've removed the nationality in accordance with Sue's recommendation.  Sandstein  17:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sand stein, you seem confused once again. Her opinion is not law, only a recommendation and since this issue is still being discussed you have no right to change anything yet. Therefore I'm changing it back until more people can post opinions of the issue at hand and a vote takes place. Wp also calls for consistency so if this is removed here without proof, evidence and any substantial matter of any substance, the same must be applied elsewhere and I will encourage it on other pages.--Brickcity55 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Brick, you need to get over your obsession with "consistency" across Wikipedia articles. Sue and Sand have both presented logical reasons based on guidelines. My "vote" is that you listen to them. 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your negative attitude 2001 is not appropriate on wp. Please use appropriate and courteous behavior when interacting with other users. Also no vote date has been set. People need time to state their opinions on the issue for both sides --Brickcity55 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't see any reason to have "American" in the lede. Its not necessary and is confusing to the average visitor. Though the show is created by an American company, few cast members are American and no filming is in the states. Its not only not necessary, but its potentially confusing.Caidh (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor - I looked at 30 random articles on TV shows, including shows from France, US, Germany, UK, and Australian and every single one of them includes the nation-of-origin in the first sentence. Since that pattern represents the consensus of a large number of WP editors of a long span of time, I think this article should follow suit. Arguing that this one article - out of 100s (?) of WP television articles - should exclude the nation seems a bit perverse. Granted the "... US channel" following soon thereafter is a bit redundant, but that is easily fixed by moving the "US channel" to a later paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DRN case discussion - There is an open DRN case on this topic. It is best if the discussion happen at only one place. If the DRN case is inappropriate, it should be closed, and discussion continue here. But if the DRN case is properly opened, the discussion here should pause and move to the DRN case. I don't have an opinion which forum is better: but it is not good to have two discussions going at once. --Noleander (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Procedurally, it might be significant to note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brickcity55 has established that Brickcity55 has created multiple accounts and has used two of them to participate in this discussion.  Sandstein  09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Caihdl, there is no confusion. The show is produced by hbo so the issue is black and white. Where a show or movie is filmed does not impact the country of origin of a show. Filming locations change so does the origin change with it? No. Casting changes. Does this change origin? No. If two seasons from now, the cast is majority Irish and the show is filmed in Australia, would the show the be Irish-Australian? No. The show is American created, American produced, and American controlled. In short, it is American. I don't understand this fearful attitude ( which apparently is only for this article and not the hundreds of others) when it comes to putting country of origin in the lead--Brickcity55 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The DRN is closed and discussion has moved back to the talk page for editors to add their opinions about the matter. Mine are stated above and I will continue to add mine as necessary. --Brickcity55 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just passing through here and will offer you my views on this. If a show is clearly owned, produced, filmed in, acted by, and about a country, the nationality of that is clear. You could even add that the owning company should be owned by people of said nationality too! Otherwise its debatable. Here, its misleading to call it a USA show.

I don't see there is a need to have the nation in there anyway, what purpose does that serve to anyone? It may be useful to say if it is written by USA or produced by a nationality - that would to some prejudicial extent suggest some of its take on the content. But ownership of the company commissioning it, what does that say to my potential prejudice? Leave it out, other pages where its not solidly one nations show should leave out the prejudicial nationalism too :) Cjwilky (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that it is an american created show. There is no reason to remove that fact simply because you don't agree with it. If you have proof, share it. You can't just make up information as you go along. The show stays American until more information is given. --Brickcity55 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed by all the debate about this simple issue. People should start a movement trying to figure out what country owns the colour red. However, when a production company that is registered in the US buys the rights to a number of novels with the intent to produce them as television shows, the resulting television production is owned by them; especially since the development was paid for by an American Company, marketing was paid for by the same company, etc... All production houses, casting agencies, technical crews and yada yada are all contracted by that American Company, and they would all agree that it's an HBO production. Game of Thrones is therefore an American Production because it is produced by HBO exclusively. There is no question about this fact. BarbaraMervin (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading all this comments, only one topic comes to my mind: What is meant by "an American Company"? Is it the legal entity of the owner? I didn't investigate, because it can change rather quick. But what do you plan to do, if the ownership changes to another country (e.g. Japan)? Change all articels about TV shows produced by HBO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.7.192 (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh the classic country of origin discussion. Is always the case of multinational productions. First off, an editor mentioned that James Bond films were American may I polity tell you where to go. They are British as mentioned here. Secondly, considering a British company was also involved in the production of the series as mentioned here, it is hardly surprising that the there is questions raised as to its origins. I would say that would make it most definitely a joint production and not 100% American as some users claim. If not joint, then most certainly a multinational production headed up by HBO MisterShiney ✉ 21:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible judging from the lack of consensus that this could be called an "anti-American" show? One source [waverider96744.hubpages.com/hub/Is-HBOs-Game-of-Thrones-series-Anti-American] seems to think so...

That was a joke, by the way (in case anyone takes it the wrong way). Personally I support it being called an American show, but personal is irrelevant here. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the issue what the reliable sources are on this, rather than opinions? The question is, are the reliable sources split on this matter? If not, then it should be left as is. Dark Unicorn 21:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Asking the question is answering it. Whatever the reliable sources say, goes. Our opinions are irrelevant - we are but slaves to the factual matter.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Deep. Dark Unicorn 22:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Confusing reliable souces with factual accuracy! Wikipedia repeats information others have propounded, it does not assert that this makes it factually accurate, merely that it is a popular belief!Sandpiper (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does it say that GoT is an American production? It seems to be a British/American co-production. HBO is the main producer, but one of the production companies (at least for S1) is British (Generator Entertainment). HBO has also received financial support from the Northern Ireland Screen Fund. Consider the TV-series Rome (which HBO also co-produced), for example: BBC provided financial support for S1 and the series is widely regarded as a British/American co-production. The business section on IMDb Pro also states that GoT is an US/UK-production. HaiDeaf (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Can you provide sources/links that show HBO has received financial support from those other companies, I've had trouble finding some. The BBC mentions the Northern Ireland Screen Fund in relation to the upcoming fourth season. It also says:

"Major parts of the first three series of the medieval fantasy drama were made in Northern Ireland with the assistance of £9.25m in grants."

While it doesn't make it crystal clear, its inferred that those grants are provided by the NI Fund. However, I'm not sure if "assistance" qualifies as "ownership". Dark Unicorn 23:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the Rome (TV series) article page and I see where you're coming from. However that show seems to have been a BBC/HBO co-production agreement from the beginning. Is the same true of GoT? Again if you could provide sources that would help. Dark Unicorn 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own article about IMDB, it's considered to be reliable:

"Nevertheless, although it is generally assumed to be reliable[N 1], ..."

I'm aware that all the information on IMDb is not 100% accurate all the time, but we're not talking about the Trivia-section, "early rumours" or "under development"-info here. IMDb Pro is a quite reliable source for this kind of information, and the information has been available for a long while now, so if it had been inaccurate, it would've been corrected by now. Do you have any specific reason to believe that this US/UK co-production information is incorrect?

You wrote: "However, I'm not sure if "assistance" qualifies as "ownership ... However that show seems to have been a BBC/HBO co-production agreement from the beginning. Is the same true of GoT?"

It doesn't really matter, IMO: What matters is that they provide financial support, and they've been doing so since the pilot. NI Screen Fund is one of the reasons why HBO ultimately decided to commission the series in the first place. There are many articles about this, but one of the most reliable ones is NI Screen Fund's own financial strategy document from 2010 (1). GoT investments are also mentioned in the NI Screen Commission strategy document in 2009 (2).

(1) http://www.investni.com/northern_ireland_screen_4_year_strategy_jan-10.pdf

(2) http://www.investni.com/northern_ireland_screen_commission_strategy_2007-2010_evaluation_summary_report_december-2009_ci.pdf

HaiDeaf (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This subject has already been debated heavily. There is no proof that any company other than HBO owns and produces the TV series of Game of Thrones. Contributions do NOT equate to ownership. Unless someone can dig up an agreement where the Northern Ireland Fund contributed a certain amount of money in exchange for co-ownership with HBO, then the NI Fund cannot be seen as a co-owner. Just because they gave money, doesn't make them an owner. Perhaps, as is well written, they gave money in exchange of shooting the tv series in NI. Just because a production company shoots a work in a certain place, that place does not necessarily own the piece---unless that is the agreement. In the case of Rome-- it was well documented that it was a co-owned agreement between BBC and HBO. However, that is not the case for Game of Thrones. There is no proof as of yet. You can't just make things up as you go along. It isn't proper editing. --Brickcity55 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Financial support does not equal ownership. Ownership equals ownership. --Brickcity55 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Walking Dead currently has 3 British actors in main roles. If two season from now every main role was played by a British actor, would the show be British American? These are issues that Wikipedia has to handle if decisions are made on the whole of the production and not the owner of the production. --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting argument --Dookiebot (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A Neutral Third Opinion: This seems pretty straightforward to me. The show comes from the United States that makes it an American show. However I don't think it's necessary to say so in the lead. The information is already in the infobox. The nationalities of the actors etc. do not matter, it's an American show. James Bond movies are full of British actors, but it's still an American franchise. It's simply an American franchise about British people. Try to keep things civil and not edit-war. --Sue Rangell 01:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sue, you should look for my opinion above. Wp calls for consistency and should stand for that above all. An action in one should be an action in all.--Brickcity55 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sue. Brickcity, no, Wikipedia does not require consistency above all, at least not if there is no manual of style recommendation. In the instant case, it's just redundant and poor writing to say: "... is an American series ... by the U.S. channel HBO". I've removed the nationality in accordance with Sue's recommendation.  Sandstein  17:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sand stein, you seem confused once again. Her opinion is not law, only a recommendation and since this issue is still being discussed you have no right to change anything yet. Therefore I'm changing it back until more people can post opinions of the issue at hand and a vote takes place. Wp also calls for consistency so if this is removed here without proof, evidence and any substantial matter of any substance, the same must be applied elsewhere and I will encourage it on other pages.--Brickcity55 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Brick, you need to get over your obsession with "consistency" across Wikipedia articles. Sue and Sand have both presented logical reasons based on guidelines. My "vote" is that you listen to them. 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your negative attitude 2001 is not appropriate on wp. Please use appropriate and courteous behavior when interacting with other users. Also no vote date has been set. People need time to state their opinions on the issue for both sides --Brickcity55 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, ownership is irrelevent. If an englishman goes into the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin, and orders a pint, pays for it, and therefore takes ownership of aforementioned pint, it doesn't mean that that glass contains British Beer. Neither does the fact that Guinness is owned by Diageo, a British company. Other than HBO's ownership, I see very little justification to call this an American show, and Brickcity55's repeated chest beating doesn't change that. Also, Asda is a british chain, even though it's owned by an American company. To me Game of Thrones is clearly not American, and other than ownership has no ties to the United states; The majority of the cast is British, it's shot mainly in Northen Ireland ( according to the rest of the paragraph), and most of the parts that weren't shot in Northern Ireland, were shot elsewhere in Europe, and Morrocco, and American Patriotism doesn't change this. Wikipedia should not be about the vanity of any particular country, and certainly shoud not state as fact, something that is clearly given the level of debate on the subject, a matter of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.144.222 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this is about American Patriotism. There is more to a TV show's country of 'origin' than the nationality of many of the actors, or where the show is filmed. The show has had numerous American actors on it, including Jason Momoa as Drogo, and Peter Dinklage as Tyron. The Star Wars films are considered American, even though the franchise has had a lot of British actors involved along side American actors, because it has only ever been owned and produced by American comapnies i.e. 20th Century Fox, Lucas Film, and Disney. Also, they have been mostly written, directed, and designed by Americans. We don't call A New Hope a Tunesian film, even though that is where the Tatooine parts were filmed. Game of Thrones is owned solely by HBO, an American company, even though they contract out certain tasks to other companies in different countries. Also, the two creators of the Game of Thrones TV series, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, are both American. The show is adapted from a series of novels by George R. R. Martin, an American writer. In short, Game of thrones is owned and produced by an American company. It is created and written by Americans, who are also the creative leads of the show and make all of the decisions about the story, characters, and the show's overall direction; And A Song of Ice and Fire, itself, is created by an American writer. It is an American television show and of American 'origin' because it was purchased, commissioned, financed, and written in the USA before any scenes were filmed elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am confused why people here are discussing 'ownership'. the info box names the country of origin, not who owns it. I am pefectly happy with the description that it is "an american fantasy drama television series", and would still be so if owned by a japanese company. If it turns out a significant portion of the creative input is from somewhere else, then it should be stated. Sandpiper (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that an odd comma in the opening lead?

This sentence just seems a little awkward with the comma - and I'm a big fan of the oxford comma but quite unsure just which kinda comma this is. "The series was renewed for a fourth season, to debut on April 6, 2014.[4]" Does anyone else see this? If so can we tweak just a little? for example 'The series was renewed for a fourth season debuting April 6th, 2014'? sorry if its just me, let me know and I shall be gone... Too soon for love (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

There are some names in the cast and characters section who have never been credited as main cast. I believe it would be best to remove them as there is no reason why those specific guest cast should be mentioned when many other guest cast are not (who one could argue are more important). Best to keep it objective. They are Art Parkinson, Michael McElhatton, Iwan Rheon & Diana Rigg. While it is possible the first three might have been promoted for season four (unlikely, but hard to say until they appear in an episode so we know how they are credited) shouldn't we at least wait until their names actually appear in the title sequence first. Diana Rigg has already appeared in ep 4.01 and remains listed as guest cast so should definitely be removed. I would do it myself but it won't let me for some reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.42.141 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really a great expert on actors to say which are stars in their own right or not, but I'd suggest that Diana Rigg's name is sufficiently starworthy that she would get mention simply for appearing. Likewise, had Sean Bean just played a footman in one episode, he would have sufficient name recognition to get a mention. I don't think that the choice here of which characters/actors to mention should be governed by the producer's own choice of which to describe as 'star' parts, which might be completely at odds with a generally accepted view. In this article the actors mentioned seem to be those necessary for a brief exposition of the characters with significant roles, which may not agree with cast listing requirements. I note the rather perverse award as a supporting character to Peter Dinklage, when from the very start his looked a prime candidate to be a major role.Sandpiper (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Scotland to United Kingdom.

Can we change the part on the right titled filming locations. The part which says Scotland would look better and correct if it was changed to United Kingdom, Like most pages on here.

If you did that then both Northern Ireland and Scotland would have to be removed. As an englishman I would suggest it is appropriate to be more precise than just UK.Sandpiper (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

nudity

I noted that the article records objections made about the show regarding excessive female nudity. While it may be true that objections to this have centred on female nudity, it seems to me having watched it that the show also has an unusually large amount of male nudity and in this sense is balanced, at least in terms of cultural norms, in the gender of nudity it presents. Reading the article you would not get the impression it also pushes the boundaries in presenting male nudity. It may be that females object to female nudity, but males do not object to male nudity and thus there has been no equivalent criticism?

Perhaps on a slightly different point (though not really), the tone of the books, which has thus far been reflected in the television adaptation, is unremittingly sadistic in that characters are introduced, put through hell and come to a nasty end with great regularity. The fact that some of them are tortured sexually seems rather a natural extension of this approach as appropriate in the case. This may indeed mean that females get the worse of it since a major subtext seems to be might makes right. I dont think that is necessarily the message intended to be conveyed to readers, since most people seem to get killed and so arguably the real message is that in a society dominated by brutality, you are very likely to suffer it even if you also hand it out, but it does flow as a natural consequence of such a scenario.

I appreciate that wiki relies upon quoting others, and as such it is much easier to quote reputable critics than an amorphous mass, but the general positive reception of the shows overall, rather implies that the public likes the death, violence, manipulation, rape and torture, which are the essence of many of the human interactions. Sandpiper (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

Little add here: in Canada, also broadcast by AddikTV (French television) : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AddikTV Dianedany (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Length of plot summaries for episode articles

In this edit, Balaenoptera musculus added Template:Plot to the Plot section of the Oathkeeper article. I removed the tag, stating, "Just because it has several subsections...that does not mean that the plot is overly long. It's the same design as all the other 'Game of Thrones' Wikipedia episode articles." Then Jack Sebastian reverted, and we exchanged further words in the edit history, as seen here and here. Several hours later, Anthonydraco showed up to begin reducing the plot material of that section, as shown here. Balaenoptera musculus tagged other Game of Thrones episode plot sections as being too long or detailed, including some WP:GAs (good articles) such as Winter Is Coming. And Anthonydraco has stepped up to trim the plot section of those other articles as well.

Though, as seen in that fourth diff-link above, I told Jack Sebastian that I'm not interested in discussing this matter, I do want to take the time to make sure that Balaenoptera musculus or any other editor is not tagging these plot sections as being too long and/or overly detailed simply because of the number of the subheadings. When looking from the table of contents, the subheadings make the plot sections look longer than they actually are. The length clearly should not be based on the number of subheadings. To Balaenoptera musculus's credit, in this discussion at Talk:Oathkeeper, he did cite WP:TVPLOT's recommendation that episode plots be 200 to 500 words. But I ask that editors keep in mind that WP:TVPLOT is a guideline, not a policy, and that (like WP:FILMPLOT) it makes exceptions; it states "[a]s a rough guide" and also states "[c]omplicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots" and "upwards of 350 words for complex storylines." Given the length of Game of Thrones episodes (being commercial free) and the format style these episodes are told in, they might be what WP:TVPLOT describes as complicated; and my concern there is that we ensure that we are not cutting out any important detail, that we ensure that every storyline is summarized well. And to that effect, I call on Tenebrae, who is excellent at cutting plot information without cutting any important details, to this discussion to see if he or she may be able to help with this Game of Thrones issue. And for anyone wondering why I started this discussion here, I did so because, per WP:TALKCENT, it's best to centralize a discussion that pertains to various articles, and this talk page seemed like the best talk page for that in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for starting the discussion here, it's a good idea to do it in a centralised place. No, it's not simply because of the subheadings. It's because the plot summaries I tagged seemed to be way over the length limit suggested in WP:TVPLOT. I haven't actually done a word count so correct me if I'm wrong. WP:TVPLOT is indeed simply a guideline (as part of WP:MOS), the relevant policy is at WP:IINFO: "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." (emphasis mine) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My feeling has always been that while the word count guideline is indeed a guideline rather than a hard limit, it is best practice to abide by said guideline unless there is consensus to waive it for applicable articles. I suppose we could reach consensus for a general waiver of the guideline regarding all GoT articles here. I don't follow the series myself and I don't intend to start patrolling the related articles. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Something else to keep in mind, at least in my opinion, are Game of Thrones episodes that exceed an hour and are the length of some films (such as some animated movies); there are only a few Game of Thrones episodes like that, but the aforementioned "Winter Is Coming" episode (the first episode of the series) is 62 minutes long. Then again, that's only a few extra minutes longer than the usual length (56-58 minutes) of episodes for the series. Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

To be sure, there's also no harm in tagging a plot summary for improvement. If a summary's close to the recommendation yet still over, it can probably be trimmed a bit without significant reductions in content. What I'm saying is that hopefully editors aren't considering the summary being tagged as some kind of admonishment against them...though it would probably be best not to expand the summary at that point, at least not without a discussion first. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. No admonishment was intended. Writing short but meaningful - i.e. dense (in a good way) - plot summaries is a very tricky job. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

So long as folk can agree as to what parts of the plot can be trimmed out, I'm in favor of it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad to render an opinion. Firstly, if we can synopsize feature-length, 90- to two-hour-plus films in 700 words or less, we can do that with roughly one-hour TV shows. Second, we can save words simply by doing such technical edits as changing passive voice ("The man was killed by the warrior") to active voice ("The warrior killed the man"); taking out the word "that" in places where it's not absolutely necessary (which is most places); finding two sentences in a row describing a single moment of action and condensing them to one; removing dialog unless absolutely necessary (which is most times); and not using two or three words when one will do ("He went quickly up the hill" > "He hurried up the hill").

Also, and this comes from my nearly nine years here, I remember in the earlier days of Wikipedia fans of particular movies (and almost every movie has some heavy-duty fans) would insist that everything in a 1,500-word plot just had to be in there. I've found that the 700-word limit is a an objective, concrete way of avoiding such excesses. And i've personally found it to be good exercise in writing concisely, straightforwardly and, by necessity, well. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned, I'd like to point out that I did not trim it "Just because it has several subsections". But they are overly long because some details are just not necessary. For example, "Rast stopped to taunt Ghost". We can just cut that. Or "Sansa took a small boat with Dentos to get to a ship hiding in the fog", while we can just say "Sansa get to a ship hiding in the fog." The trivial details about the boat doesn't even matter when you take in all the context. They reach the ship. As far as I can tell, almost every edit I've recently contributed in GoT plot sections are to remove such excess. WP:Filmplot makes exception for when you CAN'T summarize it short enough. In this case, we obviously can, as the edits I've made lost no major consequential details. I've been contributing films and TV series articles for a very long time and I know what I'm doing.

Also, there are many instances that I did what Tenaebrae has just said. I reworded numerous passive sentences to active. Even said it in the edit summaries. Kindly read them. Better yet, select my edits and see the difference yourself. You'll see that even if I remove stuff, most sentences say the same thing, only less superfluous and with less words. If you don't believe me, ask Doniago or Ten, they've all worked with me before without any slight friction. They can confirm what I'm doing easily enough. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should generally try to stay within the 200 to 500 words guideline, if perhaps more often closer to 500 due to the length of the episodes. This should normally be quite feasible if one takes the effort to write concisely, and to trim unimportant details, which improves the quality of the prose. As an example, I just copyedited a random paragraph in "Oathkeeper" from 58 down to 36 words (-38%) without losing anything of significance. This should be possible for most existing plot summaries.  Sandstein  15:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've now cut the plot from 887 to to 607 537 words without, I think, removing anything important. Further trimming should be quite possible.  Sandstein  16:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Sandstein! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments on whether or not we should get rid of the subheadings, which as I mentioned above, can make the plot sections look longer than they actually are? The reason I brought up that aspect is because I have seen editors judge an article's length and sometimes the length of plot sections simply based on the number of headings. There have been several times when I have pointed to WP:SIZE for editors to base the size of an article on, emphasizing to them that readable prose size is what matters when it comes to judging an article as too long or not. If a person includes the subheadings when putting the plot section through a counter, that can also add to the plot length. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mean subheadings such as "In the North" or "In King's Landing", I think that they should generally be retained. They improve the article's structure, and consequently its legibility. Without them, the text would appear more compact, but specific information would be harder to find. The exception is if everything that happens in any one region or setting can be summarized in one paragraph, but that will most often not be the case.  Sandstein  15:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course those and similar ones are the subheadings I mean, since they are plot subheadings in the Game of Thrones episode articles. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, has anyone here seen this? My God, it must be over 2,000 words — for a TV episode! An important episode, yes, but if we can get Titanic to 700 words.... --Tenebrae (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, but The Wire finale is a special case. Can't expect to keep that to a few thousand words. The normal rules shouldn't apply in this case. <<<<<<<<<<< joke! joking! not really!

Anyway, I can summarise Titanic in 2 words. One of them is "sinks".

Re the subheads, I think they're fine, if they add to comprehensibility then they're a good thing, but I don't see any reason to exclude them from word-counting. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How does it make sense to include them when counting the plot? The word count for a plot section is supposed to be about the plot summary, not the plot's heading; this is why we are not supposed to include the heading Plot when counting the plot. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's probably a legitimate argument to be made that if the word-count of the subheadings all by itself impacts whether the count is significantly over the recommendation then more trimming should be considered. I mean, how many words are we talking about that are just the subheadings? DonIago (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone remember what the plot sections for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies used to look like?[1] Huge and full of close detail with hefty character lists. Check out what they look like now: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. That's more like it, right? Right now, the show is still on and Wikipedia's readers are eager for all sorts of small details. That may change in a year or two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)