Talk:Valar Morghulis

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

70 minutes?

I don't really care what the source cited says about it being 70 minutes. I watched it tonight, and including the recap and intro, it was 65 minutes. lukini (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably including some of the fuzz and fluff at the beginning and end, kind of like how most shows are described as an hour long even though they're forty-odd minutes if you take out the commercials. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What?

"Pyat Pree appears and uses his magic to conjure chains and bind Daenerys with them. He explains that with the return of the Mother of Dragons, magic itself has returned as well, and he plans on keeping Daenerys bound within his stronghold to ensure that magic lives forever. However, Pyat Pree realises too late that this has in turn made Daenerys' dragons stronger; Daenerys has her dragons burn the warlock to death and destroy their chains of bondage."

This confuses me; where does it say the dragons become any stronger? They already knew how to breathe fire, and the chains disappearing, to me, just looks like them being dispelled due to the warlocks death.

I guess it's a point of view thing, but yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antef (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. PP only says "[our magic] is stronger in their presence, and they are strongest in yours." Whoever wrote down the version you mentioned was reading too much into things. When you see something like that, just fix it, no before-the-fact discussion required. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the term "valar morghulis"

I'm not a specialist for game of throne but I think it's a second stage Lord of the ring reference "Morgul Vale" written on deformated pseudo latin "valar morghulis"

Meaning of the term "valar morghulis"

I argue that the meaning of the words "valar morghulis" is relevant to this article and that the novels serve as sufficient source material for the statement "the words 'valar morghulis' mean 'all men must die.'" I have no problem with phrasing this in such a way that acknowledges the possibility that the show may go in a different direction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the book should be enough. Use template:cite book. DonQuixote (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably overkill considering that the text already cites the book, but it doesn't hurt. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic discussion about whether citations are necessary or just helpful, meaning of the term "citation," etc. (feel free to skip)

Citing the book means that you have to list it as one of the references, listing the author, book, publisher, etc. and even the page number if that's helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, citing something means saying where it came from. Listing the author, book, and publisher is one way to cite something but it is not the only one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the word in context. In the context of wikipedia, citing a source means to list the publisher, author, title, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The context is two people having a conversation on a talk page. But let's look: On Wikipedia, the article citation begins with "Broadly, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source (not always the original source)." The text of the article referred to the source, so yes, it is correct to say that it cited it.

Before you decide on the content of your response (if any), consider taking a look at the part of the article under discussion to see whether it meets with your satisfaction in its current form. I think it's unnecessary given the wording of the sentence and you don't but we don't seem to be in disagreement that it doesn't hurt. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And...let me quote the rest of it for you. "More precisely, a citation is an abbreviated alphanumeric expression (e.g. [Newell84]) embedded in the body of an intellectual work that denotes an entry in the bibliographic references section of the work for the purpose of acknowledging the relevance of the works of others to the topic of discussion at the spot where the citation appears. Generally the combination of both the in-body citation and the bibliographic entry constitutes what is commonly thought of as a citation (whereas bibliographic entries by themselves are not)." And that's the point. The minimum requirement for a citation is to also list publisher, author, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "Saying it in general is one way to do it and providing a formatted alphanumeric tag is another way to do it." No "minimum requirements" are stated. The word "citation" just means "say where it came from."

You do realize that we're no longer talking about the article, right? You're arguing with me about whether or not I "said it wrong" while speaking to you on a talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er...no. Please exercise some reading comprehension. On wikipedia, "providing a formatted alphanumeric tag, etc." is the way of doing it. Read the article that you yourself provided the link to. Or more specifically: "Broadly, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source (not always the original source). More precisely, a citation is an abbreviated alphanumeric expression...", where it clear states "more precisely" rather that what you seem to want it to say "alternatively". Or you can go directly to the wikipedia guid WP:citing sources: "Citations are an important part of any Wikipedia article, serving to identify the reliable sources on which the article is based. In most cases, citations for specific pieces of information contained in an article are given in the form of footnotes, though they can also appear within the body of an article. Citations indicated by a superscript number or other means in a line of text are called inline citations."

So, no, I'm not arguing that you "said it wrong"...I'm pointing out that "The minimum requirement for a citation is to also list publisher, author, etc." DonQuixote (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the minimum requirement. The minimum requirement is that the source exist at all, even if the article makes absolutely no reference to it. Most of the statements made in most articles only imply where their content came from. Not every piece of information on Wikipedia is followed by a little parenthetical tag, not in this article and not in others. In most of this article, sources are only implied and not stated in any way.

As for my reading comprehension, I see "an important part of," not "the only way to indicate where something came from." I see "in most cases," not "in all cases." "Citations indicated by a superscript number or other means are called inline citations," and citations given in the body of the text are called signal phrases and are both common and encouraged in articles about works of fiction.

Since you have trouble understanding me, I will rephrase. Because the text already says where the information came from, it is not necessary to say so again in another way. However, as I said earlier, it does not hurt. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Citing sources#Types of citation. DonQuixote (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with any of your claims about "minimum requirements" and certainly nothing to do with what I meant when I said something. You are reading into things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the types of citations used on wikipedia, so in the context of wikipedia, the minimum requirements are those that meet those types of citations listed in WP:Cite. DonQuixote (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Cite doesn't say anything about minimum requirements. The minimum is "attributable, if not actually attributed." In this way, saying "This information comes from the novels" exceeds the minimum requirements. We are encouraged to add citations where relevant, but it is not absolutely required in all cases. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fine. I'll concede this point. You can cite any way you want, but please use the ones listed in WP:Cite if and when asked to do so. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that I did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Oathkeeper

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]