Talk:Second Sons

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Television Low‑importance

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

Include chapter info.

This handy chart cites the novels and other sources.[^[1]] It is sufficient to establish non-triviality. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That chart cites Wikipedia. You can't cite something in the article that cites the article itself--that's the furthest thing from WP:VERIFIABILITY. DonQuixote (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the reason why we don't add information not verified via secondary sources. This would have been a great source had we not allowed Sherlocking between the book and the episodes without the backup of reliable sources beforehand. This is the sound of our chickens coming home to roost. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. What do you mean by "Sherlocking"?

DQ, can we concur that the existence of the Slate article establishes significance/non-triviality? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still can't cite it though. DonQuixote (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional problem - one I've brought up elsewhere where the reference was used. if you look at the lower left corner of the website, it identifies itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run". It is by definition unusable as a source, and only establishes that fans are very interested in comparing/contrasting/evaluating the bokks versus the series. Add the circular linking to Wikipedia, and it craps out. Sorry - I had high hopes for this source to solve the problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck not? Wikipedia's rules require that the content be notable and verifiable. Nothing says we can't cite Slate for notability and the novel for verification. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kirk, Chris (April 7, 2014). "How Does the Game of Thrones Series Line Up With the Books? Which episodes portray which chapters, charted". Slate. Retrieved June 26, 2014.

RfC participation request

There's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Slate-1] Kirk, Chris (April 7, 2014). "How Does the Game of Thrones Series Line Up With the Books? Which episodes portray which chapters, charted". Slate. Retrieved June 26, 2014.

[1]