Talk:Game of Thrones title sequence

material moved from "World of A Song of Ice and Fire"

The following is way too detailed for the article in which it previously appeared so I'm moving it here in case anyone wants to incorporate it into this article.

Two years before the TV show aired, the network contacted film editor Angus Wall to figure out ways to use maps in each episode, similar to how the legend or map at the front of fantasy books work. Since repeatedly showing maps during each episode could not be made to work, the idea of maps was moved to the opening title sequence. To differ from the standard tropes for fantasy maps, Wall's company 'Elastic' came up with the idea of a world inside a sphere where a computer-illusion camera pans from kingdom to kingdom. Elastic took an existing map of Westeros and a hand-drawn map of Essos, both by George R. R. Martin, and played with their scale in Photoshop until the continents lined up perfectly. Intending to stay as true to the books as possible, the actual dimensions, the locations and their placement, and the different terrains are all based strictly on Martin's maps. Martin, who did not see the sequence until the premiere, endorsed the title sequence. The HBO Viewer Guide also released a "known world" map for season 2 of the TV adaptation, which the virtual camera of the opening titles shows first in the season 2 episode "Garden of Bones" with a pan from Westeros to the city of Qarth.

--TyrS 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (AFD-tagged instead) Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Game of Thrones title sequence → gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Title_sequence – I love this show, but beyond the level of detail that is already given at Game_of_Thrones#Title_sequence, I doubt this is notable outside Game of Thrones fandom. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you actually requesting a page move? It sounds more like you are either proposing a merge back to Game of Thrones#Title sequence, or proposing it be deleted here on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Practically, it's a merge of whatever content isn't already found at the wikia page. I didn't find a specific template for such a merge to an external site. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Copying content to an external site is not a merger in Wikipedia's terms and can be done at any time. However, then deleting this page would require WP:AFD. The merger request is therefore inappropriately used here.  Sandstein  10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree an AFD is more appropriate here, so I've now tagged it as such. I'm closing this move request. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should the table be left in?

I am starting a discussion to prevent an edit war. An IP believes, for reasons I hope they will explain here and have explained in edit summaries, that the table showing how many episodes locations or cast members appeared in the title sequence for each season should be left in the article. I disagree, as I believe such tables are trivial and do not serve an encylopedic purpose; it's not important how many times certains locations have appeared to the average reader. --TedEdwards 01:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe the Game of Thrones Title Sequence table that lists the elements should remain on the Game of Thrones Title Sequence wikipedia page for several reasons. First off, the title sequence for the show is itself unique. The constantly evolving opening credits that display new locations every couple of episodes result in a complex variety of different opening sequences. Thus this differentiates this title sequence from others. Cast members only appear in the sequence when they appear in the episode, which is also relatively uncommon in shows. Thus, this information serves to show not only the slew of different locations that appear in specific amounts of title sequences throughout the show but also the extent of the ensemble of the show and how many episodes each character appears in each season. Thus, this provides a statistical data base of the entire history and contents of the title sequence. Some may consider it trivial, but I believe it to be relevant information in presenting the many different variations of the title sequence throughout the show's history as well as the show's extensive cast and ensemble. Additionally, I've used this list as a reference since Season 5 and continued to use it in every succeeding season. I have noticed that the title sequence table has recently gone on and off, however it has existed for several years and is a important part of the page for people, like me, that do research into the stastics of the show. I'm willing to discuss further points in relation to this topic. Also I'm the IP address referred to above. 70.95.144.198 (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The first point you make, about the uniqueness of title sequence, does not require a table to illustrate how it works; it can be done (and is done) in just words. About the actors, this isn't the article to illustrate such infomation, nor is any really as we only tend to list total numbers of episodes on each actors' Wikipedia article. It could also be slightly misleading as actors such as Gwendoline Christie and Michael McElhatton didn't star until later seasons, so many of the episodes they appeared in aren't here, so it could seem that they appeared in fewer episodes than they did. The infomation about how many times a location appeared is very trivial, and only for fans really. The place for this sort of thing would be (and is) at here on fandom.com, so that's where you can find the information. I'll ping Drmies, as they thanked me for removing the tables, so I wanted to know exactly why, and see if the reasoning can add to the discussion. --TedEdwards 23:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with the removal, and continue to do so. And I do believe it is fandom, because the underlying premise here is that the information is worth inserting because the show (or the sequence itself, to some extent--which I already find exaggerated) is notable. That this sequence is so unique that all the minutia are to be documented is not a given; indeed, it is original research. The problem for me isn't that OR would make this unreliable--I am sure the fans are watching carefully with pencil and paper--but that there are no secondary sources that warrant this level of detail, never mind that such tables are hard to see on a mobile device or difficult to edit. What I hear from the IP is "I think it's important" and "I find it useful", neither of which are policy-based, let alone strong arguments. Thank you, TedEdwards. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Both of you made fair points in the situation. However, I don't see the harm in merely retaining the page for the next week and a half until the show ends. At that point, I wouldn't see the need in the table and would not protest removal. Nonetheless, having the table for the last week and a half would be helpful as merely a reserach tool for the show (which could be considered policy). If the table remains after the show concludes or it doesn't wouldn't matter as much. Thank you. 70.95.144.198 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't make changes based on the wishes of one reader. I will therefore remove the table, but you can find similar tables at [1]. --TedEdwards 21:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is strange for me. I have only visited this page FOR the table, and I do not agree this is 'one user' - in fact, the way this reads, it's more as though one person has decided this is not what the 'average reader' is interested in (not necessarily true - just how this conversation reads), but I would not be surprised to find that it is actually the foremost reason the page is visited. I tend to find the article about the sequence is pointless and doesn't hold any value without it. I think the argument for removing the credited actors names is perhaps strong, given it doesn't represent the full episode count for many of them. But I don't think the argument for removing the location table is. What I don't understand from a policy perspective is why well-formated reference information is to be abandoned in favour of words. What is the actual policy basis for removal?

I am for retaining the table. It is the most informative part of the article. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but I'd like to add my opinion into the mix. I think the table should be kept in. It's my personal opinion that, without the table, the whole article becomes pointless. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I suppose I should wade in an attempt to get a consensus and stop the continual edit warring over this. My opinion is that the first part (locations in the title sequence) is perfectly valid as article content, the one issue with it might be on its sourcing, although sourcing back to the TV show itself is acceptable for some content. The second part, which is about actors credited in the title sequence, is more questionable since not all the main actors who appeared in the show are necessary credited (Conleth Hill as Varys might be an example, he was in some important scenes in season one but not credited in the title sequence). I don't think the actors credited is an important element that's worth adding, and you might question why other personnel in its production are not mentioned, so that can be removed. Hzh (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with the above users that this information should be retained. It is wildy informative. It can be restructured and reformatted, and some info can probably be excluded, but outright deletion is not correct. I do not know why this user is hopping from every Game of Thrones article and deleting plot summaries, images, and entire sections with no consensus or ignoring consensus, based entirely on his subjective reasoning ("it's not important how many times certains locations have appeared to the average reader"). It is concerning and not appropriate.--Templeowls17 (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The whole table is just trivia and completely unencylopedic. That link (which is a policy "What Wikipedia is not") says articles should be a summary of the subject, and having an entire list of what locations were shown in seasons is not summarizing it, that's putting every minute detail in. As I've said and at least one editor has, the list of actors is misleading, due to actors such a Conleth Hill starring in their first season(s). --TedEdwards 20:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The table is a summary. It is not a full description of all the title sequences, it merely summarizes the main locations shown and actors listed in all the title sequences. Hzh (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The article should be a summary (doesn't matter whether the table's a summary), and saying that Dragonstone appears 4 times in season 3 or whatever is making the article not a summary; instead it's explaining every minute detail and is therefore unencylopedic. btw. Templeowls17, when have I deleted a plot summary? --TedEdwards 23:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are arguing. The table is a summary (which you appear to agree), it is part of the content of the article, which is a summary. A summary in a table does not stop becoming a summary when read within the context of the article. Hzh (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't a summary with the table in (irrespective of whether the table is a summary or not). It's going into extraneous detail, and therefore the article is not summarizing it. Summarizing the title sequence in this regard would be saying different locations appear in different episodes, with maybe detail about some of the sourced "rules". Going into too much detail would be saying how many times a location appears in a season, because to understand how the title sequence works, you don't need to know that Vaes Dothrak appeared in 9 episodes of season 1, 3 of season 2 and 3 of season 6, you just need to know the general pattern of the sequence. As Drmies has said, the table is nothing more than fandom and cannot be cited with secondary sources. --TedEdwards 00:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you made the wrong assumption that summary cannot include trivia, which is incorrect. Summary style and trivia are two separate issues. There is an argument for saying that what it summarizes is trivia, a counter argument could be that the locations are important elements of the title sequence - they show where the events in an episode or season take place, and such a summary can also show the relative significance of a particular location over the season or entire series. I'm actually not that bothered whether it is kept or deleted, but I think there are enough people who are interested in the information given (as can be seen by those who restored the edits, and most of those who voiced their opinion here), and that there may be good enough reason to consider it not trivia to keep the table (for the locations, but not for the actors, especially when there are already more thorough tables in List of Game of Thrones characters). Hzh (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The table should be removed because it goes into far too much detail, when the general pattern of the title sequence only should be explained to have an understanding of the topic. As I've said many times, the table is therefore unencyclopedic. --TedEdwards 18:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No one disagrees that trivia does not belong. What confuses me is you saying the location info is trivia. Isn't detailing the locations shown in the sequence the entire point of this article? Does anyone view this article for any other reason? There's already an article for the theme song, so this article is entirely visually-focused. If you remove the table detailing all the locations, there's an argument that the article is no longer WP:NOTABLE, by your own admission. The Sopranos, for instance, has a fantastic and famous title sequence. No article though. It's the same every episode. Game of Thrones' are not though. The title sequence is changing every episode. This is what makes this title sequence, and subsequently the article, unique. To call a table that details this info as trivia is stripping the article of its entire purpose. With that said, the actor info is trivia. This info is absolutely not needed, and we all seem to agree with that. Every show's title sequence has actors rotating in and out. To detail this info here is not needed and not unique. Plus, it causes the table to be clunky and long.--Templeowls17 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think lifting comments I made two years ago is helpful. That said, in that discussion, I was supporting deleting the entire page/merging it with Game of Thrones, as I did believe that removing the table, which I wanted and still want removed for reasons explained, would make the article worthless. I'm not going to renominate the page for deletion/merging imminently, but the point of any article is to summarize what the title of that article is. This article, without the table, adequately summarizes this by providing production details and describing the general pattern of the title sequence, among a few other things. It therefore does not need the ridiculous table, which is WP:FANCRUFT; I'm saying the tables are only of interest to fans, not the reader who hasn't seen the show. The sort of place for this table (and is) gameofthrones.fandom.com. --TedEdwards 00:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The summary issue has already been dealt with, repeating it won't convince anyone further. WP:FANCRUFT is also an essay, not a guideline, it in any case quite clearly states that using reasoned argument is preferable to calling something fancruft. So how do we look at it the table to judge whether it is trivial unencyclopedic content or not? Let's break it down (I'll deal only with the locations part, since I believe the actors portion is not needed). The table includes a list of locations used in the title sequence, since giving the locations is an important element of the title sequence (it tells the audience where the action takes place, and orientates the viewer as to where the locations are), you can reasonably say that the the list of locations is entirely pertinent to the article, and some might say essential. The other part of the table is how often these locations are used, and that part you might argue is trivial unencyclopedic content. But, as I have already explained, you can use it to indicate the relative significance of the locations, it can also shows which locations are used within a season, and as Templeowls17 said, it also illustrates the changing nature of the title sequence that may be unique to each episode. As far as I'm concerned, a list of locations is unquestionably valid encyclopedic content for the article (therefore at least half the table can be kept), and while the frequency of locations used is of lesser importance, the argument to delete the table entirely is not that compelling because there are arguments for keeping both parts of the table. Hzh (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia article should be designed to give infomation to a general viewer, meaning someone who's never seen the show before in this case. Someone who's never seen the show before is not going to understand any of that table, and also the table fails to make any distinction between the season 1-7 title sequence and the season 8 title sequence. Every single thing you explained in your previous post can be explained in words without the need for this bonkers table; it's easy to explain that different locations appear in different title sequences, it's easy to say why it changes (to orientate the viewer), and you don't need the table (just use words) to illustrate that the title sequence changes with the episode. Also, the title sequence doesn't really indicate the significance of locations; Pyke didn't appear once in season 7, but appeared in the sequence 3 times that season. Same for Winterfell in seasons 3 and 4, and Vaes Dothrak in season 2. Also, the title sequence doesn't necessarily line up with what appeared in that episode. Hence I remain completely unconvinced that the table should be in the article. As this dispute doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon, I'll ask for a RfC. --TedEdwards 18:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, as the one who said I find the choice 'strange' - let me just say that in addition to visiting this article FOR the table of locations, I've never watched the show. I watch the title sequence by itself without the show, as it is the sequence itself that is of interest to me. These kind of subjective arguments are no good, because they're just inaccurate. The very same aspect of Wikipedia's rules that speaks in favour of summary's also expressly notes that statistical summaries in tables, with context, are appropriate. What's more, it is accurate that the table is a 'summary'. It expresses which elements appear and how frequently. It lacks most of the detail - which episodes they appear in, whether they appear in the episode itself, what specific aspects of the location have changed (as changes occur). There is so much detail that can be gleaned from the sequence, that it is hard to imagine how this table could by any more a 'summary' if it tried.

Table RfC

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 the table in this section be retained? --TedEdwards 18:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support This informative table is absolutely worth being retained and is encyclopedic. It is not trivia. The changing locations are what separates the title sequence from other acclaimed ones. I do not see what is gained from deleting it. The table makes this an entire article WP:NOTABLE, and as I stated above, the user advocating its deletion agreed to that very notion. While I firmly believe his intentions are good, this editor has been fighting for this article / tables to be deleted for close to two years despite clear consensus to the contrary. There also seems to be clear consensus above.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I made that comment 2 years ago. That's all that needs to be said. --TedEdwards 00:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that; I disagree. It'd be different if I was using that comment for an unrelated discussion, but the comment is in reference to this exact table on this exact page. And you have been trying to get this article trimmed / deleted for years. You saying that your clear contradiction does not apply because of time is hardly a reasonable argument. That aside, besides you and one other editor, consensus seems to be pretty clear here.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sent here by a bot. I agree that the fact that the sequence changes every episode is notable, and that the title sequence itself is notable. The specific nature of the changes, summarized over the entire show, is significantly of less importance. The table should be removed as unnecessary. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Exclude. The table is trivia. While the fact that the title sequence changes is important (as is a number of other things about that), the exact number of a times each setting has appeared in the title sequence is tells us nothing of importance about the title sequence. That the title sequence changes can and should be said in words, not numeric data. That the table reveals which locations are more or less important is not salient: that information belongs in articles about those locations or the Game of Thrones universe in general, not one about the title sequence. Placed here, the only thing that can possibly be said to this information's credit is that it is interesting, which makes it trivia. Trivia belongs on Wikia, not an encyclopedia. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging those who participated in the discussion several days or weeks before the RfC started and subsequently have not commented here: Drmies, Smeagol17, Zuko Halliwell, and Hzh. 70.95.144.198 notified via talkback. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Remove as trivial. Saying that without the table the article becomes meaningless might be a good argument for deleting all but the table, but really it makes no sense at all. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep As already indicated, the changing nature of the title sequence is a particularly noteworthy part of the show and it serves to navigate the viewers to where the events of the episode happen in what is a complex show with numerous locations. I will add however the following comment: I have been unhappy the way this discussion is conducted, since this is basically the same as the above section, where the majority supported keeping the table apart from Drmies who was WP:CANVASS (an inappropriate act when the person's opinion is known and the only one canvassed). This discussion was added immediately after we had a consensus on keeping the location table. I really don't see why we have to repeat the same just because the TedEdwards was unhappy with the consensus (hence I did not vote until I was pinged yesterday), nor should we disregard what was said by other contributors. Just for the record, apart from those who have participated in this section, Zuko Halliwell [2], Smeagol 17 [3], 70.95.144.198 [4] supported keeping the table. Another IP editor 202.27.54.3 who supported [5] might be someone else who forgot to log in, but it is not clear as there doesn't seem to an overlap in their edits apart from this. Hzh (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

To begin with your procedural concerns, I would like to remind you that we use consensus, not votes. Consequently, the arguments made during a discussion are far more important than how many people take each side. While Smeagol 17 and Zuko Halliwell clearly favored retaining the table, their arguments amounted to "I like it": they made no apparent effort to explain how the table is useful in constructing an encyclopedia, or really to advance any viable argument. Also, Drmies was essentially already involved, given that he thanked TedEdwards for removing the tables, which is clearly expressing an opinion. TedEdwards, if we assume he spoke honestly (as we should), pinged Drmies to ask him to explain his opinion, which he hoped would enhance the discussion. WP:CANVASS specifically allows pinging other users for that purpose. (Not following up with 202.27.54.3 was my error, and I will do so now.)

To address your arguments for keeping the table, you claim, if I understand correctly, that the table does two things: 1) it shows that and how the title sequence changes, and 2) it shows which locations are more important to the Game of Thrones universe. To your first reason, I will claim that I believe this information could be more plainly and succinctly explained in words. We could say, for example, "The Game of Thrones title sequence changes each episode to highlight the locations which will be important to that episode." (If I made any errors or omitted a detail or two, pay that no mind. That can easily be remedied.) This sentence much more briefly conveys the information that the table conveys. Moreover, it directly tells the reader what is important. If you give the reader a table showing the number of times each setting was highlighted, and the goal is to show that the title sequence changes to emphasize which settings are most important, you are asking the reader to make an interpretative leap. In other words, you are giving the reader raw information and expecting them to determine which parts are important, when that is the writer's job: the reader of an encyclopedia should only need to digest the information that the editors have highlighted for him.

Your second argument, that the table shows which locations are most important, accurately explains its best use. When we look at that table, we can instantly see which locations are more prominent in the series. However, knowing which locations are more important in the series does not tell us anything about the title sequence itself, and everything in an article about the title sequence should be designed to help us understand the title sequence better. I think you have made a compelling argument for including the table in an article that more directly discusses the Game of Thrones setting or plot, and I would be much more amenable to moving it to one or more of those. (I will leave to it someone more directly familiar with those articles to determine which one(s) would be best, if we all find that path agreeable.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, they pinged you as well. One of the criteria for accusing someone of canvassing is that they notify those they think agree with them. Clearly that didn't happen here.

It may be true that "the changing nature of the title sequence is a particularly noteworthy part of the show", but that doesn't warrant this excruciating level of detail. Wikia is a better place. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hzh was accusing TedEdwards of canvassing you. It was not directed at me in any way, I believe. (I also briefly addressed that accusation in my reply.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of the article, a number of other IP editors also supported keeping the table since TedEdwards was involved in an edit war with them, the argument that Drmies was already involved therefore doesn't hold, since TedEdwards was essentially only asking for opinion from the one he knew will support him (note to Drmies, I'm referring to the earlier discussion). It is an illegitimate use of WP:CANVASS. There was already a consensus, TedEdwards acknowledged it when he acted on it to remove the cast table. This discussion therefore cannot be considered an honest attempt to reach a consensus when there already was one.

As for the rest of your argument, the table is a summary - it summarise the usage and to describe it in prose, e.g. when particular location appears, how often they appear, etc. could be excessive. I therefore don't agree that it would be more succinct in prose since a short description is inadequate, although I don't object to a fuller description that also include discussing the relative significance. What appears in the title sequence is necessary in any description of it, certainly a list of locations is necessary and entirely appropriate for the article, and I would say that the frequency of the location is appropriate too. Hzh (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hzh: Looking at the page history, though all of the reverts were made by a different IP address, it is obvious it was all the same person. People sometimes have dynamic IP addresses, meaning the address changes very rapidly: often every couple of minutes. If a number of different addresses are all doing the same thing, or the same type of thing, or are engaging in conversation as if they are one person, you should assume they are. It is essentially impossible to get ahold of someone using a dynamic IP address, because leaving a message on the talk page of the last address they used is likely to never reach them: even if they check in a couple of minutes later, they'll likely be using a different IP address, which has a different talk page. Fortunately, that person was watching this talk page, because the first response to the initial discussion was by an IP user who acknowledged that we was the same person. (And I already notified that address, because he seems to have had access to it for more than a couple of minutes, so it might be a static address associated with his home or work or some such.)

Also, acknowledging that a consensus has been reached concerning one aspect of an issue (e.g., the cast table) isn't necessarily acknowledging that a consensus has been reached on all aspects. Once everyone had agreed to remove the casting table, there was no reason not to do so immediately, since the results of the discussion concerning the locations wasn't going to effect that result. Saying that he needed to wait for the entire discussion to close is making him wait to improve the encyclopedia for no real reason.

As for the substance of your argument, I am not certain I agree with your statement that "what appears in the title sequence is necessary in any description of it" in the sense that you mean it. If you have a title sequence that remains the same, you can describe what is in it: that's simple enough, and it tells you a lot about it. If you have a title sequence that changes every single time, you can explain what is changing (in this case, the locations depicted). That is also rather simple, and also tells you a lot about it. But I don't believe that the specific content of any single title sequence belongs in an article about the title sequence as a whole. And that is what this table is: even if it is grouped by season, it is a table consisting of tallies for each time a location appears in a single sequence. This article doesn't need an index of tally marks for each time a location appears in an episode: knowing that The Twins appeared in season one once, not twice, doesn't really enhance my overall understanding of the title sequence. There's a stronger case for keeping just the last row, which is about how often various locations appear in the title sequence as whole, but I'm still not really convinced: knowing that The Twins, with five total appearances, has appeared one time more than Moat Cailin doesn't enhance my understanding of the title sequence as a whole. It isn't that this information falls entirely outside the scope of this article: it's just that I cannot really gain any valuable insights about the title sequence from it, and thus it can only serve to distract. That's why we've been calling it trivia: it really is trivial.

I can see a case being made for noting that King's Landing, Winterfell, and The Wall have appeared in every sequence (as they already are). It is probably also worth noting that some locations feature prominently in the title sequence for short intervals due to their importance to the current plot, and perhaps give Meereen as an example. But beyond that? I'm not convinced that I learn anything about what the title sequence is by learning that Pentos is almost never the answer. Nor am I convinced that knowing the title sequence contains Riverrun exactly 9 times out of 73 contributes to my broad understanding of the topic. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The IP addresses can be checked easily, they came from different countries, therefore not the same person unless the same person used different proxies (which can get blocked in Wikipedia and therefore we seldom see them). You don't change country with dynamic IP without proxy (and probably rare here, I have only ever suspected one persistent blocked vandal of hopping countries using proxy) and I have no idea why I need to argue about a point which is easily checkable. Trying to be selective about consensus when the only person who supported the proposal is someone who was canvassed (everyone else rejected the proposal to remove the tables) is poor judgement to say the least. What you have argued is that more could be written about locations, which isn't a good argument for deleting the table. This is annoying me more than it is worth, I participated only to stop the constant edit warring (and it appears to have stopped), and really I don't need to argue about unfounded assertions about other editors. I have already made my point therefore I should bow out of this discussion. Hzh (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel I should clarify that I have argued that the table should be deleted because it presents information that is too detailed to be useful. (I believe some of the details that would deleted alongside the table would be more clearly relevant in written form, hence my suggestion to do so.) Having said that, if you still believe you have nothing more to say, I will respect your decision to bow out. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hzh: I completely refute the accusation that I've been canvassing, as I pinged Drmies after he thanked me for removing the table in this edit, and therefore clearly had an opinion, but one I didn't know the explanation of, so I asked him about it to aid the discussion with the IP, as I very clearly explained when I said see if the reasoning can add to the discussion. It was not done to votestack or whatever. And if you believe I did canvass, why did you wait about a month before you mentioned it? --TedEdwards 18:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic. Focus on the discussion happening now, please. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I am amazed this discussion is still occurring despite clearcut consensus above from weeks ago. The editor suggesting the table be deleted has been advocating for its deletion, along with the article's deletion, literally for years despite continued consensus to the contrary. At what point are they told that this cannot continue? It's an honest question. From what I can gather from the above two editors is that IPs don't count because they are likely the same person (despite the actual IPs clearly originating from different countries) and the article doesn't delve into the locations displayed in the table. But if a reader is unaware of the series and wants to learn more about the locations presented in the table, they can easily click on the link for each location and read more. The entire this article exists is because of the title sequence's uniqueness in terms of the changing locations. What better way to display this information than with a table? And lastly, I cannot say it enough; the editor advocating this table deletion said this article is meaningless without it [6]. Extremely head-scratching.--Templeowls17 (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) For the last time, stop bringing up a comment I made literally years ago in 2017, and then suggesting all this is some evil plot of mine to get the page deleted. You can say it enough, as you've succesfully demonstrated. I am not getting the page deleted, and in fact, shortly after the deletion discussion, I made a bold edit in removing the tables, which was not contested for about 18 months (WP:Silence is consensus). In all that time, I did not at any point try to get the page deleted, and I will not as I know there is no consensus to delete it. So stop it. About the consensus now, there is none, as Compassionate727, an editor here purely because of the rfc, said earlier, consensus is based on the strength of arguments, not how many editors support such a thing. To be absolutely clear of my opinion as of 2019, not 2017, I believe the article should be kept, without the table, as the notablity is sourced with a good number of secondary reliable independent sources (see WP:NOTABLITY). --TedEdwards 22:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC) I'm not suggesting you are evil at all. But the fact is that the article is kept because two RfDs (1 of which you proposed) have decided through consensus that it should be kept. Not because you're opinion in 2019 deems it so. Is it possible your opinion changed about this article's deletion? Sure. Is it also possible after two unsuccessful RfDs, you've settled on simply getting the tables deleted? Also entirely possible. That is why I will continue to link that comment, and I'm sorry if its offensive to you.--Templeowls17 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2019 (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.

Table

@Hzh: I'll start this discussion about removing the table with some arguments (some of which I have given before, some by others) about removing the table, with clarification on one of them

• A non-watcher (who would not know anything about the locations mentioned in the table) would not gather any information about the title sequence. This is important to note because non-watchers are who the article is meant for (articles should be understandable to everyone). This means the whole table is trivial and goes into unnecessary minute detail.
• The table makes no distinction between the Seasons 1-7 title sequence and the Season 8 one (which only had subtle changes).
• A table is not necessary to illustrate how the title sequence works. Words can achieve the same thing. To understand how the title sequence works, you don't need to know the number of episodes a location appears in, in a season.
• The first section of WP:IINFO says article on creative works should [discuss] the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. While the article adequately covers all the things in that list, it says the summary of the work (i.e. the title sequence) should be concise. I don't believe having a table makes it concise.
  • I take concise to mean "explained in as few words as possible, but without losing any pertinent detail". I clearly don't believe the table is pertinent detail.
• The article does not need to show which locations are more prominent in the show, as that information is irrelevant to this article.
• An article should be a summary of the topic, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING which says and article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
  • What I mean by this is an article should be one summary, not a collection of summaries.
  • I'll attempt to use an example to explain the argument, involving elementary particles. To briefly explain the physics, an electron is a lepton, which is a class of elementary particles.
  • In the article about elementary particles, there is no summary on leptons. Instead a detailed summary of leptons is found in its own article.
  • In the article about leptons, there is no summary on electrons. A detailed summary is in its own article.
  • So even though the table on this article could be considered a summary, having it means the article as a whole isn't a summary.
  • To be clear though, the table should not have its own article.

I may make additions to this list. If I do so, I will describe the additions later in the discussion. --TedEdwards 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep using the same arguments does not make it more convincing.

1. All article contains things non-watchers wouldn't know, using it as an argument is a non-starter. And no, articles are not meant for non-watchers only, you just have look at view count to see that viewing numbers for TV shows peaked when the show is aired, it's mostly people who have watched a show who look for articles on the show.
2. The table shows the variations much more concisely that prose can do, spinning the differences out in prose would make it unreadable.
3. I don't see how any distinction between seasons 1-7 and 8 is any argument for removing the table. One season also does not negate the significance of the rest of the season. You are arguing for improving the table.
4. The table is by its nature a summary, it shows at a glance the variations in all the title sequence. It is the very idea of concision.
5. The locations in the title sequence show where the actions would take place in that episode. That is the whole point of why the title sequence was done that way, the showrunners wanted a title sequence that can orientate the viewers in the introduction to the episode.
6. There is never any idea that such summary in table would negate an article, and your example does not make sense and in no way equivalent. A summary about one aspect of lepton would be in the lepton article, and a summary about one aspect of the title sequence is in the title sequence article. The table is one summary of the variations in the title sequences across multiple seasons, it is about the title sequence, not anything else, and that is the point of using the summary in an article on the title sequence. If we want to take your argument seriously, you would need to be in fact is arguing for a article on locations in the title sequence, so you cannot say at the same time that you are not arguing for that. If in fact we don't have an article on electron, then you can add the summary of electron in the article on lepton. An article is a collection of summaries about various aspects on a subject, if a sub-topic gets too big, then you can split the sub-topic into a sub-article.

I don't think we are going to agree on this, and if you insist that your view is correct, then submit for a RfC again and see if you can gain a consensus. Hzh (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should make more of an attempt at discussion before and RfC as is what is normally done, but to counter some of your arguments

1. Saying All article contains things non-watchers wouldn't know is obviously true, even I agree there. However, WP:NOTADVICE says at one point A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field, so what I'm getting at is a non-watcher whose knows nothing about the show should be after reading the article be able to understand the whole article. With the table containing a lot of in-universe language, they're not going to understand what it means.
2. My point is to understand how the title sequence is, you do not need to know how many times various locations appear. Infact the section #Description adequately describes the title sequence. Considering that removing the table would make the article more concise as no further text needs to be added.
3. How can the table be improved to make the distinction for Seasons 1-7 and Season 8? If it's impossible, it's an argument for removal.
4. See 2.
5. How much action took place in Pyke in Season 7, or Vaes Dothrak in Season 2? So the table could be misleading. Also where action took place in various seasons is not relevant to an article about the title sequence.
6. Can't be bothered to explain the argument if you refuse to try and understand it, other than saying a non-list article should be a summary as a whole, and adding a summary of minute detail is not summarizing the topic of the article as a whole.

You're also using the same arguments as before, so why should I find it convincing? --TedEdwards 20:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It would make it an impasse, which can only be resolved by an RfC. I can understand your arguments perfectly well, but I found them entirely spurious. For example the idea that an article should not be a collection of summaries can be easily disproved by looking at any significant topic, even Game of Thrones itself, which contain at least half a dozen summaries of individual sub-topics. Another example is the idea that an article should not make the assumption the the reader is well-versed in the topic, that certainly does not mean "non-watchers are who the article is meant for" which is something you made up. You have presented in fact very few valid arguments (I'd say none) for deleting the table, what argument you have presented argument can be taken as suggestion for improving them (e.g. if you don't like numbers, that is just an argument for removing the column, not deleting the entire table). It is also bizarre to argue that because of a minor issue with Season 8, that is an argument for deleting the entire table. There is really very little that is hard to understand in table anyway - it is explained in the text, and the locations are linked. The table is a summary of the details about the title sequence, which is valid content since the article is about the title sequence. The whole point of the article is to present such summary of details not appropriate in the parent article. The title sequence changes, and such changes are significant by design relevant to the episodes (they are not just random collection of insignificant trivial facts). The table informs the reader of significant elements of the title sequence, and is therefore valid content. Hzh (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started an RfC. I love how you say I've presented very few or no valid arguments, even though the only policy and guideline you've referenced is WP:CANVASS (which is not relevant to whether to keep the table) in any discussion on the table. --TedEdwards 23:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the RfC, maybe we can get a consensus either way. For me, as long as the content is valid for inclusion in an article (which the table is), then it can stay. There is no point in inventing rules that don't exist. Hzh (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on table

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 the table here be removed? --TedEdwards 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see above discussions prior to commenting. --TedEdwards 23:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:CALC allows us to perform simple calculations, which is what the entire table is based on, so it is not original research. It works as a concise summary of the several changes that the intro underwent through the seasons. Those changes themselves have been the subject of critical commentary, and reference the different elements of the MOS:PLOT that are mentioned in the sequence, included in the proper context that explains them (i.e. the fact that the intro is showing the most relevant locations for each particular chapter, thus replacing the interstitial scenes used in other series to represent each location).

The table itself is an elegant solution to summarise with the minimum level of WP:DETAIL what otherwise would have been a long and cumbersome exposition of minute changes (which has been suggested previously as a substitute to the table), and it's IMHO an excellent example of the skilled craft that Wikipedia editors employ to convey information efficiently.

However, I would add to the text a clarification that the number in each cell represents the number of episodes in which each location appears, as it is not self-evident. (Brought here by Yapperbot). Diego (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The table shows how many changes are made to the title sequences, which is quite relevant to this article - showing precisely how much work was made to adapt the sequence to each particular episode, something quite unusual when titles of series are typically changed each season at most. Diego (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Agree that we should add text that represents the number of episodes in which each location appears for clarification. Comatmebro (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep As argued in detail above, the table is an appropriate and valid summary of the title sequence that would be useful for readers. Hzh (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2020 (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.