Talk:Game of Thrones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleGame of Thrones has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
March 23, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
June 3, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
August 30, 2016Good article nomineeListed
October 17, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
November 9, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Game of Thrones:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Priority 1 (top)
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconA version of this article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 21, 2016. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Lighting material[edit]

Regarding this, this, this and this, MLTRock might have a point since the material has been covered in WP:Reliable sources. But we don't include everything that has been covered in reliable sources. And whether this content is best suited in this article or a related article is also something to consider. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Could we include it in the page for The Long Night (Game of Thrones)? I haven't seen this being a massive complaint until this episode, and searching for "game of thrones lighting" on google brings up articles that talk about that episode. Since most of the talk comes from that episode it only makes sense to me to put it there. QueerFilmNerdtalk 01:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

MLTRock:Complaints about the lighting have been common for years on for example Twitter: .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLTRock (talkcontribs) 02:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

We can't just cite random twitter users, we need to use reliable sources, and fan's "complaining" on twitter aren't reliable sources. QueerFilmNerdtalk 02:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

MLTRock: Those tweets are example of complaints. I have cited reliable sources about there having been complaints in the past in Game_of_Thrones#Lighting_issues. These complaints didn't start with season 8's episode 3. Personally, the lighting problems didn't bother me until that particular episode so I understand your reluctance to include this issue in Game_of_Thrones, but the complaints have been around a lot longer, so I think it's fair to mention them there.MLTRock (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You have to cite reliable sources "as examples of complaints" testyfing the season/episode/year you claim they started. You say "These complaints didn't start with season 8's episode 3." and "have been around a lot longer" but do not say, with a reliable source, when it was. Most of the sources are about season 8 or ep 3 - please remove excessive sources which are only about season 8 ep3 from the first sentence; for the last sentence, 3 sources are enough. I support QueerFilmNerd's idea to move that to The Long Night (Game of Thrones) - let's wait for more editors to express their views. BTW based on "Personally, the lighting problems didn't bother me until that particular episode", please check WP:ADVOCACY. ;-) WikiHannibal (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this is too narrow of a complaint/criticism to be included in the main article. It would be much better suited in the article for the episode itself, as the majority of the sources are for that episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No Episodes or Series Overview section[edit]

First time looking at this article, and took some time to find seasons and episodes information. I eventually located a link to List of Episodes in the infobox, and then a season's table under Adaptation Schedule, under Production. This seems less than convenient. Is there a reason there's no first-level Episodes or Series Overview section? --Tsavage (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism regarding subtitles[edit]

There has been a slow motion edit war by @Calavj: to insert claims that Game of Thrones has been criticized for lacking subtitles. A quick check of the source cited leads me to the belief it does not belong in this article. The article does not criticize Game of Thrones or its producers for lacking subtitles, they criticize its Australian broadcaster (Foxtel) for lacking subtitles in the first showing. Since this is not a criticism of Game of Thrones itself, I do not see the relevance to this article. FDW777 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Problem with the intro[edit]

I'm a rank newbie to Game of Thrones. I have never watched an episode and never took the time to read the Wikipedia article until now.

As a new comer, I think there is something missing from the intro. (Perhaps the movers and shakers of the article are too close.) Only the second paragraph tries to give a synopsis of the entire series. But this passage doesn't mention any characters, just story arcs. As a newbie, this was unsatisfactory. You don't see how the characters interact with each other or the plot. This is supposed to be a fictional story, not a legal treatise.

Perhaps, we (I really mean you; I don't know any of the storyline) could put in one sentence after each arc, just to show how the characters interact with that part of the story. Sort of like the following. (Words in italics are mine and don't bear any resemblance to what someone who knows a little bit more about GOT would write.)

Set on the fictional continents of Westeros and Essos, Game of Thrones has several plots and a large ensemble cast, but follows three story arcs.

  • The first arc is about the Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms, and follows a web of alliances and conflicts among the noble dynasties either vying to claim the throne or fighting for independence from it. (I'm making this up.) The King's eldest son Robb swore to avenge his brother, Bran, ...
  • The second story arc focuses on the last descendant of the realm's deposed ruling dynasty, who has been exiled and is plotting a return to the throne. Viserys lives in...
  • The third story arc follows the Night's Watch, a brotherhood defending the realm against the fierce peoples and legendary creatures of the North. The Night's Watch's leader is...

Or maybe something else. Of course, the characters might be too complex to sum up in a few sentences. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing the lead image and adding "plot is too long" tag at Game of Thrones episode articles[edit]

TedEdwards has been removing the lead image from Game of Thrones episode articles. He has also been adding the "plot is too long" tag to them. Concerns have been raised that he is doing this indiscriminately. For a centralized discussion on it, per WP:TALKCENT, see Talk:Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)#Image and tag. Or it can simply be discussed on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing every Infobox Image from episode articles[edit]

I’m posting this here so that we have a central location to discuss this issue, as this affects every Game of Thrones episode page. A forewarning; I have not edited on Wikipedia for some time so my terminology and tact may be lacking, so apologies ahead of time.

TedEdwards has removed nearly all of the Infobox images from each episode’s page and has dictated that WP:NFCC#8 renders this needed because "these images do not significantly increase reader’s understanding of the topic". I have my own issues with this logic as I, for one, find these images incredibly helpful. As I said, I have not edited for a long time and just enjoy reading articles. I found this removal to be quite jarring from a reader's perspective, as the images help me to associate which episode page I am viewing without having to read the entire plot section. Perhaps some editors feel the same way about that; I'm not sure.
But that’s my own personal opinion. The more pressing matter is how it’s being determined which images stay and which ones go. This user has (thankfully) established a subpage that explains his rationale by episode, and I find the explanations to be incredibly subjective. I advise everyone to view the explanations, as I found them to be quite flawed. All the reasons listed are purely subjective.

  • Image didn't add anything,
  • Image for the sake of it,
  • I don't think Benjen is a major enough character to need a photo of him,
  • Changed my mind after remembering that the scene shown wasn't originally scripted,
  • Image really conveys Fairly's acclaimed performance

Another cause of concern is that certain images are allowed to stay because the actors in the image had an acclaimed performance, for instance Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken. Yet this episode and actor did not receive much acclaim, rather it was quite the opposite. Meanwhile, the Infobox image which included Tyrion on The Laws of Gods and Men was removed and no mention was made of Tyrion’s performance on this editor’s subpage, despite him being nominated for an Emmy for this episode’s performance. This whole process reeks of subjective opinion and just general disarray. I can go on and on with the flaws of this system but I’d like to keep this short and allow more experienced editors to weigh in.

My personal opinion is that all the images be returned to their respective pages. If there is a need by this editor to address particular images, then a discussion can be started on that episode’s talk page and either the image stays, a new image can be suggested, or it can be deleted outright, after consensus concludes so. But this idea that all of them get deleted and then editors need to battle to get them back (Fire and Blood) is needlessly time-consuming and subtracts from the articles. Templeowls17 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

On the file page of every screenshot of a TV show on Wikipedia is the template {{Non-free television screenshot}}, which looks like,

Note limited number i.e. not using them on all bar one Game of Thrones' episode article. Hence I've removed most of them, bar a few which I thought did have merit. As said by Templeowls17, I created a subpage at User:TedEdwards/Game of Thrones image removal, explaining the removals. --TedEdwards 00:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is on every file page of every screenshot of a TV show on Wikipedia, and it does dictate that the use must be limited, but each of these respective images was only being used on their respective episodic pages, save a few (White Walker, etc.). I do not think that it is appropriate at all for a single user to delete them all, and then back it up with a subpage filled with subjective reasoning, especially when these images did not to appear to violate any other fair use rules. I think the far more appropriate measure is to take the discussion to each page you find an issue with, start a discussion on the talk page, and try to generate some consensus on whether the image should be kept, changed, or deleted altogether; not deleting every single one except a few you deem worthy based on your subjective thought. And you did not address my concern of you singling out actors/actresses' performances (Michelle Fairly, Alfie Allen) and allowing their respective images to stay, but not applying the same rule evenly (if you can even call it a rule). One could argue that every actor's role has received critical acclaim, especially compared to those two, who really haven't received much acclaim at all particularly at awards shows. Again, this is just a very flawed way of rationalizing all of this. I hope to add some sort of discussion notification to each episode's page so that we can get a bit more discussion, as its lacking at this point. Thanks.--Templeowls17 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't really see how this is any different from cover art for any other media having separate images for each subsection (such as sporting events being entitled to have a different poster for event). Surely there is a component for these images meeting the identification parameter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That's my stance as well. At least for me, these images are critical and useful to identify the episode article I am viewing.--Templeowls17 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • From an NFCC perspective, cover art is covered by NFC per WP:NFCI#1 because it relates to official branding and the like from the copyright holder of how to present the work. Even if that branding is not explicitly discussed, it is considered appropriate to include. But this does not extend to a infobox screencap from an episode because now WP editors are determining what the "branding" of the episode should be, and that cannot be done without sources to avoid NOR. Now if there were a title card, that would be fine, and rare cases episodes have explicit promotional images (like some eps of Doctor Who). But most don't. So any image used in the infobox has to be selected with NFCC#8 in mind: that it is based on a scene or the like that is part of sourced discussion (from RSes) about the importance or visual effects or something akin about that scene, as to remove the OR nature. And we're talking about very specific scenes. Say a guest star had a critically praised role, but no scene was commented on directly, you could not use that to support a screencap image. --Masem (t) 13:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
But wouldn't a more specific instruction and rationale for the use of these screenshots fall under the guidance of {{Non-free television screenshot}}, as TedEdwards himself stated? These screenshots undoubtedly help identify the episode, along with offering critical commentary of the episodes' pivotal scenes. Not to mention these images were low resolution and they had limited use; the overwhelming majority were only used on that respective episode's article. I am by no means a free-use / image expert but this seems to adhere to those rules pretty straightforwardly. Ultimately though, I do agree with some of your points, particularly the branding aspect. My main issue is the way in which these images are being removed. Its basically just one editor's subjective take on it. For instance, Blackwater's image was retained, but Beyond the Wall's was removed, despite being nearly identical image styles and both episode's receiving numerous visual effects accolades. The logic here is all flawed. --Templeowls17 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you bothered to check TempleOwls, the visual effects for wildfire in "Blackwater" are directly referenced; the dragon breating fire at wights in "Beyond the Wall" is not directly referenced, just a few vague mentions of visual effects, which could refer to many things in that episode. Also, about "The Rains of Castamere" and "The Laws of Gods an Men", Fairley's performance in that specific scene is praised (critical reception section talks about reviews of the massacre, and acclaiming Fairley's performance for that). And you don't need an image to "identify" the episode, the lede can do that (giving a bit of undetailed plot info). And for a show like Game of Thrones, how does the image for, let's say, "Valar Morghulis" allow you to remember that Winterfell burned down in that episode (or any other plotlines in that episode)? --TedEdwards 18:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Wildfire is directly mentioned where? In the caption? So why not edit the caption in Beyond the Wall to include "dragon fire" rather than delete the image? Maybe I'm unclear on what you are referring to; please elaborate further. Secondly, because "Valar Morghulis" is widely known as the first episode where we see an actual White Walker (and not a silhouette), rather than the episode where Winterfell is burned down. You see this image and immediately know which episode article you are viewing. And in regards to "The Rains of Castamere" and "The Laws of Gods and Men", the reception section of "The Laws of Gods and Men" clearly praises Tyrion's performance in the trial scene, which was shown in the Infobox image [1]. He was also nominated for an Emmy for this episode, which Fairly was not. Now I'm not saying an Emmy nom is necessary for an acclaimed performance, but it certainly causes it to be notable. And this is not the only inconsistent application of this rule; you've deleted numerous Infobox images of praised performances yet kept Fairly's and oddly Allen's.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)O.K. I missed the stuff about Dinklage's acting specifically in the performance, so sorry, but his perfomance isn't conveyed from the screenshot that happened to have been chosen, he's just looking a bit cross (also I swear the screenshot and caption don't line up, the camera was looking towards the left of his face when he demanded the trial by combat); it's not like Fairley's, where her performance is very much evident (or Allen's, which I don't understand why you complain about it more than Fairley's, but I left that image more because of the controversy surrounding that scene, not as you make it out to be, as being solely due to his performance). About Blackwater, it says in the article The special-effects department developed a catapult that fired bags of burning green napalm for the wildfire explosion, but decided to instead color regular fire green in post-production. As William said, even if image make it a bit more convienent, it does not necessarily increase understanding. A short plot in the lede allows you to figure which episode it is, and shows all the plots, not just one. About your answer to my Valar Morghulis question, I was trying to make the point that an image of a White Walker does not remind you that Tywin becomes Hand of the King, Winterfell gets burned down, Jaqen gives Arya the coin, and Daenerys enters the House of the Undying. You would have to know these all happened in the same episode for the image to be of any help. --TedEdwards 20:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Your last point first; how is one image supposed to show you every storyline from that episode? That's like saying this image must be deleted because it does not show Arya's continued training in Braavos, Jaime and Bronn fighting the Sand Snakes, or Jorah and Tyrion captured by slavers. That's not a reasonable argument. And in addition, you would not "have to know these all happened in the same episode for the image to be of any help". The White Walkers literally have no connection to any of the storylines you listed. Secondly, Beyond the Wall has 2 - 3 paragraphs detailing the battle which that image showed; that image does more than simply convey "dragon fire". Lastly, in regards to Tyrion in "The Laws of Gods and Men", his entire performance was acclaimed. Any picture of him at the defendant's stand is appropriate, but particularly the one selected, as its showing the climax of the episode. I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but you likely missed it because you were deleting these images at 30-40 seconds a pop. Nowhere near enough time to evaluate detailed articles to see if the image helps further the reader's understanding of said article.--Templeowls17 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem's take on this. The de facto branding (by OR, no less) is a huge problem. Perhaps more importantly, though, all 10 criteria at WP:NFCCP have to be met for inclusion of non-free content. Notice that "convenience" isn't a criteria. Criteria #8, Contextual Significance, reads: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. That last part is key. Omitting the images is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject. Yes, one may have to read a little more of the actual text to associate an article with a particular episode one has already viewed, but that is a matter of convenience, not understanding. As for the suggestion that all images should be returned and a case made individually to remove each one, that is not how this should work. Due to the nature of non-free content, the default should be to not include non-free images until an individual case is made (and accepted) for including each image, i.e. why is a particular image necessary to increase readers' understanding of a particular article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess I'm among the belief that one user should not be yanking down 70+ images within a 32 minute time span at the height of this show's notoriety and viewership. Rather, some consensus of editors should be generated beforehand, particularly when the reason for removal is related to a "reader's understanding of the subject", a very subjective question and even more subjective when you are determining this in less than 40 seconds an image. He even notes in his subpage that he doesn't know why he made certain deletions and reverts them; likely because he went on a rapid deleting spree without actually analyzing "does this image enhance the reader's understanding of what's presented in this article". I would also disagree with your notion that "Omitting the images is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject". Images certainly do help with understanding; isn't that why a handful of images on episodes' articles were kept? Multiples images were not deleted because the images ties to a scene in the episode that was critically acclaimed, yet this rule was not applied universally. Several images were deleted despite them helping to show the viewer why a scene or actor was critically acclaimed or ridiculed. I recommend you actually read the reasons why he deleted what he did, and hope you see the same flaws in it as I did.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
So I'm not allowed to change my mind? When you say I spent less the 40 seconds per image, that's not really the case, that's just a mean. Quite a lot images were very clearly images for the sake of it which showed nothing, so required little thought, but some, like The Red Woman took me longer for me to decide. And "my rules" are consistent, it's based on whether the image can be described in words without negleting to convey important detail that can only be shown in an image; some images managed to convey this relevant detail, but most didn't. --TedEdwards 20:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No, you are not being consistent. Your reasoning for keeping the Blackwater (Game of Thrones) image is that the article has 1 sentence regarding how Wildfire was created via special effects. So that's enough to warrant an image. Yet, The Red Woman has multiple paragraphs dedicated to how this visual effect feat was pulled off / the acclaim surrounding it, but is deleted. None of this makes any sense. --Templeowls17 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The picture for Blackwater actually showed the effect, the picture for the Red Woman did not. Simple as. If a image can be replaced with words, without losing any relevant infomation that can only be conveyed with pictures, get rid of the image per WP:NFCC#8, as the image would not increase a reader's understanding. --TedEdwards 23:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the image for The Red Woman showed the effect as well. It is Melisandre recreated as an older woman through practical effects along with CGI, which the article details. No different than Blackwater's image, which is also created through CGI and an attempt to use practical effects, which the article details. Please explain what I am missing here. If you want to delete every image because of WP:NFCC#8, I can at least understand your standpoint. But you picking and choosing 8-10 images that can stay based on your subjective reasoning of "the image would increase a reader's understanding" is even more frustrating., because you are not applying it universally. And then you delete 65 with minimal explanation. Nothing is stopping another editor from just reverting your changes and saying the opposite of what you say in the edit summary (Image does add to the understanding something, Benjen is an important character, etc.) and then starting an editing war, as neither one of you provide detailed explanations or consensus. This is why you should be taking this to the talk page of each articles; discussing and collaborating on what's best for that article. This discussion regarding The Red Woman is a good example of how thorough a discussion about one image can be. The idea that 72 images can be analyzed by one editor, in the time that you did, is not appropriate IMO, but I'm happy to dive into each image with you if necessary (perhaps on each of their talk pages).--Templeowls17 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The image has to add relevant knowledge to the article that can't be described in words to meet WP:NFCC#8. If it doesn't, the image has to go, because it's possibly illegal. For instance, Second Sons. While the wedding scene I grant you was mentioned several times throughout the article, the image itself shows absolutely nothing that can't be described in words, and saying the location being mentioned was reason enough for being readded is tbh a stupid argument because the location was a studio (often locations aren't a reason to keep. because if it's not a studio, where an image isn't necessary, there is a free image alternative of just showing the filming location e.g. Azure Window in Winter is Coming). If an article mentioned something about designing the Sept, that image could be used (although a wider shot would be better). And where did I admit the image for The Laws of Gods and Men was "wrongfully removed". I did say I missed a sentence about Dinklage's performance, but that was right before I said his perfomance isn't conveyed from the screenshot that happened to have been chosen. Don't put words in my mouth. --TedEdwards 18:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the the Second Sons image. That should be changed and I'm happy to work to ensure a proper image is there or none at all, yet you don't have a counter to my The Red Woman point but still revert my change. You are starting an editing war by simply reverting all my changes on other articles with a blanket statement despite me placing detailed reasons why these images should remain in the edit summaries. You have already been warned by one editor to refrain from editing wars.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I am also not putting words in your mouth. Dinkalge's entire performance is acclaimed. Any image of Dinklage from the defendant stand properly convenes his performance. That being said, the picture is right before he asks for a trial by combat, the most climactic point of the episode. I cannot think of a better image.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Templeowls17: I've changed the Laws of Gods and Men image, to avoid futher dispute, on where he says "I demand a trial by combat", as it better shows his performance. It might not show for about another week though due to a glitch of the old image still being on Wikipedia. But click on the image to see what I've uploaded. --TedEdwards 19:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC) The image that should be displayed is this one. Seems I see the old image on the article when using Chrome but not in Incognito mode. Tell me what you think :) --TedEdwards 23:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
About the images you readded, I added dummy edits for all of them explaining the reason I removed them, after I reverted without giving with reason other than keep the page without image during a dispute (I thought I'd explain them here, but then changed my mind). The exceptions are Winter is Coming, where I forgot to make a small change to the page allowing for the dummy edit, and Second Sons, but I explained that above. I've now put in a dummy edit for WiC, that has saved. I don't think you noticed these edits, although you did revert my dummy edit for Walk of Punishment rather than the revert itself. Anyway, I find some of your arguments pretty weak. One is you suggested keeping the image for Walk of Punishment partly due to the music. tbh I don't get that argument because it sounds like "I need a new bed because I want to learn to drive" (i.e. makes no sense). About The Bear and the Maiden Fair, nothing is said about that scene in the critical reception section (unless that scene was the final scene; if that's the case, that needs to be made clearer), and the production section only talks about the bear used and inserting said bear into a shot filmed in Northern Ireland. The effect does not need an image to help describe as it's fairly basic. I changed my mind about And Now His Watch Is Ended fyi; I intially removed because I felt the performance was more due to shouting in Valyrian, but the facial reaction conveyed also shows her performance. --TedEdwards 23:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I very much like the new image; I think it works perfectly. My reason for returning the images was partly caused by the fact that these images were only on each of their respective page, in accordance with limited use rules. Since you removed them, they have all now been deleted, rendering this discussion rather moot. Given the subjective and ongoing nature of this discussion, I thought it more appropriate to leave them on their pages, as they have been for years, while we discuss but that time has now passed. And I apologize, as I did not see your dummy edits. However I still think the correct action after my revert was to take the discussion to the talk page, rather than reverting my reverts and potentially starting an editing war. I understand WP:BRD is not an official policy, but it is the preferred method of handling these matters.
In terms of your other points, while I did list "music" for a reason to keep Walk of Punishment, I also listed props, writing and effects as well. These four facets are all detailed in length in the article. With these four things detailed, the image gives the reader a good understanding of how they tie together. While obviously a image cannot convey music, given the grotesque image shown, it definitely increases readers understanding of the scene. Especially given the controversial nature of the musical choice following Jaime losing his hand, which the article details.
For The Bear and The Maiden Fair, the final scene is Brienne battling the bear. If you read the sources, the reviewers are referring to Brienne v Bear as "a spectacular moment", "gorgeously staged". The reception section should be reworded to directly apply to the fight rather than the "final scene", but that is not a valid reason to remove the image. It's the reception section being poorly worded, not the image being improper. And in terms of the production of the episode, this is just a subjective crossroads. I very much feel like the bear being shown helps the understanding of the article. The trainer of the bear had to be digitally removed and a reader could see how that looked in the actual scene. Again, I don't think it's fair to just remove an image because you personally feel like it wouldn't further other people's understanding, especially when myself and others (the person who uploaded it) disagree with you.
That being said, all of this is pretty much wrapped up as the images have been removed. I don't have much Wikipedia time on my hands but I intend to try and re-upload some new ones that hopefully meet both our criteria. Thanks for chatting.--Templeowls17 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Templeowls17: About the file pages being deleted, I'll try to list what the images were off roughly on my subpage, so that they can still be discussed. I'm sure the captions will remind me what they were. Then, images can be selectively restored.

Some suggestions of non-free images that might be useful:

  • The Kingsroad: Can't think of a good image for the infobox, but comparing Lady or Nymeria to a free image of a Northern Inuit Dog would be beneficial.
  • Lord Snow: Close up of Arya during final scene (water dancing), as her performance was praised.
  • Hardhome: As wide a shot as possible of the battle (Night King's POV), to show what critics were praising. Original image didn't show a fight, just the Night King raising Wights, which wasn't mentioned in article.
  • Mother's Mercy: Instead of an image on The Red Woman, and naked image of Cersei (remember Wikipedia is not censored), would probably increase understanding.
  • The Spoils of War: There must be a good non-free image here (perhaps one of Lannister soldiers set on fire?). Old image wasn't good (Jaime charging at Drogon) as there wasn't anything mentioned production or critical wise about that image.

Hearing your view on the Bear and the Maiden Fair has managed to change my mind, so I won't protest if the image is readded. Rather than uploading an image though, I would recommend going to WP:RFU and mention it's intent to be used (and make sure you quote me here).
However, I haven't changed my Walk of Punishment, a free image of the props is shown (see WP:NFCC#1), and the image can be simply described as "Locke (suddenly) cuts Jaime's hand off". --TedEdwards 17:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox cast suggestion[edit]

Extended content
Game of Thrones
File:Game of Thrones title card except not because fair use.jpg
Created by
Based onA Song of Ice and Fire
by George R. R. Martin
Theme music composerRamin Djawadi
Opening theme"Main Title"
Composer(s)Ramin Djawadi
Country of originUnited States
Original language(s)English
No. of seasons8
No. of episodes73 (list of episodes)
Executive producer(s)
  • Mark Huffam
  • Frank Doelger
  • Chris Newman
  • Greg Spence
  • Lisa McAtackney
  • Bryan Cogman
  • Duncan Muggoch
Production location(s)
  • Northern Ireland
  • Croatia
  • Iceland
  • Spain
  • Malta
  • Morocco
Running time50–82 minutes
Production company(s)
  • Television 360
  • Grok! Television
  • Generator Entertainment
  • Startling Television
  • Bighead Littlehead
DistributorWarner Bros. Television Distribution
Original networkHBO
Picture formatHDTV 1080i
Audio formatDolby Digital 5.1
Original releaseApril 17, 2011 (2011-04-17) –
May 19, 2019 (2019-05-19)
Related showsThronecast
After the Thrones
External links
Production website

Tried utilizing a collapsible list to include all of the main stars in the series' primary infobox, while also keeping the full list provided at the characters page. Didn't want to implement it without consulting here, so, thoughts? Sock (tock talk) 05:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Change needed to Sex and violence section. Gives undue weight to fringe critics[edit]

they way the line was worded gives to much weight to a very fringe group of critics. i propose adding the word SOME before critics, because the way it was written gives the false impression of it being an unniversal criticism. Also, the show doens't only depict sexual violence against women, Theon has a whole paragraph for his torture and experiences.SWAGnificient (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

i propose this line. I feel it better represent the section as a whole. Despite its otherwise enthusiastic reception by critics, some have criticized the show for the amount of female nudity, violence, and sexual violence it depicts, and for the manner in which it depicts these themes. SWAGnificient (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019[edit]

In the "Cast and characters" section, please champ the link for Gilly (A Song of Ice and Fire) to Gilly (character). 2601:241:301:8CCF:8049:C797:C357:C39D (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done QueerFilmNerdtalk 03:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Reception section at The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones) article[edit]

We need opinions on the following matters: Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)#Let's try to keep this article balanced and Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)#False balance. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In other words, we need opinions on assessing and presenting the critical consensus and/or appropriate weight per WP:Due. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is part of the discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)