Talk:Game of Thrones season 8

Title

I'm slightly curious as to why this isn't titled "Season 8 (Game of Thrones)". --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to comply with WP:TV-NC. It's the way people have agreed to do it and as has been kept uniform across the overwhelming majority of articles; Game of Thrones (season 7), Game of Thrones (season 6), Game of Thrones (season 5), Game of Thrones (season 4), Game of Thrones (season 3), Game of Thrones (season 2), Game of Thrones (season 1) etc — IVORK _Discuss 04:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Because "season 8" isn't the official title. People just informally refer to the season as such. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

More details can be found at WP:TVSEASON: For an article that describes one season of a television show (possibly containing a section for episode summaries), the article should be named first by the name of the show, and then by the season/series number. -- Alex^TW 05:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Even without WP:TV-NC imagine for EVERY series which now can be found with a list of episodes, and the sucessfull ones even with articles about seperate Seasons, there would be Hundreds if not Thousands "Season 1 (Series)" articles... it would sound so stupid... the whole release dates etc. are another thing I came here and leave disappointed with another thing not understanding thing about US Companies. ABC, HBO, CBS, first Mid-Season, than 3 years to create 7 episodes without any budget problems. However, who decides such things like above? definition of tq? Mods, users or mods only? Many things make no sense in Wikipedia but this does! For me the day soon ends, but enjoy yours in the American Countries/AUS Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't make sense of that. But it's determined per WP:CONSENSUS. -- Alex^TW 00:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Emilia Clarke-Emmys 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit suggestions

I realise that the page is protected to prevent vandalism - rightfully so. So can we suggest edits here:

Episode 2: The episode summary does not include Missandei's encounter with racism - which might play a greater role in the rest of the season - as a basis for the Unsullied departure from Westeros Neoconfi (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Technically, it's not really racism so much as xenophobia, and even to a degree (in this fictional world), one which is justified, considering she is part of a foreign army which invaded the continent and whose leader, daughter of a previous despot, forced theirs to abdicate. It'd only be racism proper if they only targeted POC Non-Westerosi leaving white ones be.

But in any case, crystal ball policy applies: we have no way of knowing whether that minor detail will be of importance in the remaining four episodes, so it should not be added. 181.115.111.234 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It mentions the "dead hoard"—this is clearly a typo, since it's not like someone is hoarding the dead, but rather, it's a dead horde. Softwaremills (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In the description for episode 3, it is stated that Arya took the face of a white walker to attack the night king. Not only is there no evidence of this, but for someone's face to be taken, they have to be dead. Not only would the Night King have been made aware of this, but it must be rather difficult to take a face off of a white walker once it has been shattered to pieces by valerian steel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.26.25 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Please add a new cast member to the 'in the north' section of characters. Bea Glancy as Teela.2A00:23C5:5011:2A01:3886:EED5:F756:2D2 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC) 2A00:23C5:5011:2A01:3886:EED5:F756:2D2 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Episode Names

HBO are not confirming episode titles until the episode airs this season. Both episodes shown so far have had incorrect names added to this article beforehand, and there have been multiple attempts to set the name of the third episode as "Battle for Winterfell" from dubious sources.

Episode titles for forthcoming episodes should not be added in until provided by a reliable source WP:RS and WP:Crystal. Until HBO or another verifiable source (i.e. not something like nextgot.com which is a fan site with no affiliation to Game of Thrones or HBO) provide an episode title, this should be left blank. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

"The Night King and his wights disintegrate" should read "The Night King and his White Walkers disintegrate" source: https://www.insider.com/game-of-thrones-white-walkers-wights-skeletons-difference-2017-8 Benikahn (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. You are correct, and was revised. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Fake Casting News

The source claiming that Edmure Tully and Robyn Arryn will appear in the premier episode is obviously fake. Please remove that. 98.187.239.5 (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

List of actors

@TedEdwards: This is how it originally was about 10 days ago. I also want to point out that WP:TVCAST is a guideline, not a policy, but since you're eager to follow it, I just wanted to ask whether you changed the order for all of the previous seasons or not? Because I believe the general format needs to be consistent for all of these articles. Keivan.f^Talk 19:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: That edit by Chairhandlers was a revert of this edit by Edizioak, which was a revert of this edit by Chairhandlers, which in turn was a revert of this edit by Edizioak. Therefore the order with Van Houten at the end is the status quo. F.y.i. all Game of Thrones season articles are like this, although this doesn't matter much as other stuff exists. Guidelines aren't these completely optional things, WP:GUIDES (which itself is a "procedural policy") says guidelines are Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply; that doesn't mean "if I don't like it, ignore it", it means "if there's a reason it's not sensible to follow the guideline, don't follow it, but if there isn't a reason, follow it". So, is there a particular reason i.y.o. why this article shouldn't follow the sentence in WP:TVCAST The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list? --TedEdwards 22:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Tobias Menzies as Edmure Tully

The source expicitly says he would appear in the first episode, which was not the case. Please provide a source generally stating his possible appearance in this season or remove the actor from the list. --94.134.89.21 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019

Under the heading 'Critical response', I have submitted a request to include a sentence about a petition which was launched to remake season 8. This further highlights how this season has been negatively received by audiences.

Change from: While the first three episodes were met with mostly positive feedback, the episodes "The Last of the Starks" and "The Bells" were criticized for their rushed pacing, writing, and deviation from critical character development, with the former being described as "anticlimactic" and "a huge letdown".[64][65][66][67][68] "The Bells" is the worst-reviewed episode of the entire series, with a Rotten Tomatoes approval of 47%.[64][69]

Change to: While the first three episodes were met with mostly positive feedback, the episodes "The Last of the Starks" and "The Bells" were criticized for their rushed pacing, writing, and deviation from critical character development, with the former being described as "anticlimactic" and "a huge letdown".[64][65][66][67][68] "The Bells" is the worst-reviewed episode of the entire series, with a Rotten Tomatoes approval of 47%.[64][69] After ‘The Bells’ aired, a petition was launched to remake season 8. DaviesEmma (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it even worth having such a section on the page? Common sense says HBO won't remake Season 8 regardless of how many fans sign a petition. They're not going to throw away such a huge amount of money invested in the eighth season. Esuka (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As the petition is not a scientific poll, it would have to made clear that this not necessarily representive of fan opinion. The user has provided a secondary source to cite this though, which is necessary for this sort of thing. --TedEdwards 22:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The petition is already listed under Game of Thrones (season 8)#Audience response. I don't think it needs to be listed twice. NiciVampireHeart 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Episode 6 summary

Add summary of "The Iron Throne" under Episodes section

Jon Snow and Ser Davos stop Greyworm from conitinuing his spate of war crimes. Danerys announces the launch of a campaign to emancipate all the slaves in the world. Jon Snow pretends to kiss her, but the treacherously stabs her, and feeds her to Drogon. A council is convened where Greyworm and Yara Greyjoy propose capital punishment for Jon, but Sansa, Arya and others oppose them. Bran becomes the first differently abled king with Tyrion as the hand of the king. Sansa becomes the Queen of the North, while Greyworm sends Jon to the Nights Watch. Arya leaves for Meereen to fight Daario Naharis, who suspects Bran of having used his magical three-eyed raven powers to turn Danerys into a despot, and who is expected to attempt to avenge the murder of Danerys.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.248.170.48 (talk • contribs)

Someone added it already. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.248.170.48 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it was removed again. See the section about this very subject thoughtfully added immediately below. Please feel free to contribute to what is sure to be an exciting discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Already done There's a summary present in the article at time of reading. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 22:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of plot summary

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.

---

I've removed the plot summary of the last episode, as most people haven't seen it yet. And before someone starts screaming about how there are no spoilers in Wikipedia, this isn't about that. The production company and broadcaster(s) have the right to make money on their product, and by publishing the plot of their episode bleeds potential watchers for them. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue. The episode has already been publicly aired on HBO and associated services and there is no law against posting episode summaries. User:Winter04

Yeah, there kinda is, since it hasn't aired everywhere yet. I am proposing that we wait a simple 24 hours from broadcast before adding it. By publishing a plot summary before people have had a chance to see it, we are infringing on the makers' rights to earn money from their work. We aren't in a HURRY. It will still be timely 24 hours from now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is your own personal opinion and does not have any basis in legal principle or fact. The episode has already been aired for public consumption and you have not listed any specific copyright violation other than claiming a "majority" of people haven't seen it yet, which is not relevant to copyright regulations. There is no reason to keep the episode summary down, especially since summaries for previous episodes have been put up within 24 hours with no issue. Winter04

FYI, Jack Sebastian has brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television‎#‎Plot summaries on the date of premiere. For the record, I agree that there is no copyright violation. QueerFilmNerd Winter04 wrote an episode summary using their words, and that is what we want here at Wikipedia. I'm afraid that if Jack Sebastian won't WP:DROPTHESTICK, then the next step would be to file a report at WP:ANEW. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, um, how about you Assume Good Faith, Amaury? Your behavior borders on a personal attack, and I have zero problem reporting it. This is called a discussion: you can be civil and not assume bad faith, or you can take a hike. I hope we don't have to revisit this subject.

Now, shall we discuss the point I made? I contend it is in fact a copyright infringement. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please point out where this so-called personal attack was made. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please point out what sort of copyright infringement is being made. Wikipedia's copyright regulations are meant to prevent plagiarism and unauthorized use of copyright materials. An independently written episode summary does not fall under any of those categories. Winter04

As we are running parallel discussions both here and at WProject Television, there will be some redundancy for peeps who don't follow both. The bad faith bit was thinking that a revert was a 'drop the stick' or 'I don't like it' situation. You then followed it up with a thinly-veiled threat to report me to ANEW. Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, boy. It's bad behavior, and it will only land you on the wrong side of my sunny disposition. Let's not do that. We can disagree and discuss civilly.

As I pointed out before - and as you admitted as well - the ep isn't available to the general public yet, so posting a plot summary before it has been broadcast is akin to video piracy, which infringes on the copyright of the makers. And again, I ask, what's your hurry? This isn't a breaking news story. A summary can wait until it finishes premiering. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't edit war, and you won't have to worry about being reported. Wikipedia doesn't just let users revert indefinitely, and if you keep reverting, then you will be blocked. It's not a hard concept. Also, the episode has aired, so it is already available to the public. There is nothing that says we must wait until an episode airs in both the East and West Coasts until an episode summary can be written. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You do get that the Wiki-En isn't just for North America, right? People around the whole world read this wiki, whether they are in Boston or Bangladesh (where, crazily enough, the episode has not been aired yet). We follow an international standard where copyright infringement comes into play; life and people who read in English exist outside our borders. We publish when the ep is available to the general public - not just the American public. Please tell me you understand that better than you understand how reverts work. If you don't, you may want to consider finding a mentor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And I'll again point you to WP:SPOILER. Wikipedia doesn't hide spoilers, so your argument is meaningless. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And I'll again point out that this isn't a case of spoilers - I know I have said that before, right? Tell me you are actually reading my posts before responding, eh?. Its about copyright infringement. We are taking money out of someone's pocket, and for no other reason than we're in a hurry. In doing so, we are no better than a torrent site. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Except we aren't taking any money away. Prove this is the case or drop it, because your arguments are wrong. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

We are giving away the plot of the episode before the general viewing audience can see it for themselves. Example: if you are in line outside a bakery for an apple pie, and I come out of the bakery noting that the apple pie tasted like rotten chicken feet, are you more likely to buy the pie, or less likely?

Most of the money that a show makes comes from broadcasters worldwide who pay for the right to stream that show on their network (or companies like iTunes and Amazon that offer downloads of the program after it has aired). If we reveal aplot summary just because it has aired here and not everywhere, that latter group has less reason to watch the show, or purchase a download or stream. That's how we are depriving the maker of income. Its copyright infringement, and we are acting like a torrent site by posting the plot summary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You're showing a critical lack of understanding of the purpose of copyright law. Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to broadcast actual episodes of the show, but it is perfectly legal for individual users to contribute their own written episode summaries. If that were not the case, then it would be impossible to ever review, summarize, or discuss any form of media. Spoilers and factual summaries of events in themselves are not copyrighted and should not be treated as such. Winter04

Respectfully, you are failing to make the distinction between a tv episode that has been out for a day or two, and one where you added a plot summary less than 20 minutes after the credits rolled. When a network television program is aired, its revenue is largely taken care of via media- and ad-buy. Cable tv, as it is without advertising, relies upon contracts with broadcasters that will air the program in other areas.

No one is saying that you cannot add edit summaries; no one ever did, and its unscrupulous (or incompetent) of you to suggest I am arguing otherwise. I am saying that you should not have posted it until at least the streaming services offer it for download, or until it is actually aired in the worldwide markets.

I don't have to understand copyright law; I know enough to understand that by adding a plot summary before it aired to the general reader, be they in Sumatra or the Sunderbans, you personally infringed upon the copyright owner's right to revenue. I take no pleasure in pointing out that you fucked up royally. You were in a rush to post before everyone else that you completely blanked on the fact that this isn't social media, and we aren't in a hurry. You stole money from the copyright owners, because who wants to watch a show that's already been spoiled by some poster in Wikipedia. It wasn't even an article on the episode; it was in the season article where anyone could see it.

But thanks for highlighting the problem. Your actions will serve, in the future, as an example of what not to do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder what the editor intends to do with that money they stole. On the issue, I agree with those who say that your arguments/reasoning on this are wrong/irrelevant, WP-wise. Personally I don't think HBO lost any money because of any plot-summaries here, but I can't cite that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, depriving someone of money - even if you don't end up with it - is still depriving them of income. I know you were trying to be funny, but literalism is a hobgoblin. Don't be that guy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I'll stick with that I don't believe HBO was deprived of money by the adding of the GoT s8e6 plotsummary to WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

How about Amazon? How about iTunes? How about the services overseas that HBO's content on a pay-as-you-service? All of that could have easily taken a hit by the publication of the entire episode's plot. (See the Bakery and Apple Pie example, detailed above). If anyone who stood to gain money from the airing of the episode, be they creators or first-run distributors, they lost money from viewers deciding to wait until the whole thing comes out on DVD. This is why people get the shit beat out of them for spilling details before they get to see it for themselves (¹). Some people just wait, because half of it was the surprise. Why the hell else would people spend thousands to see the movie before anyone else?

We should probably let this drop. I know I am right on this subject, and there's nada you have offered here or elsewhere that I find compelling enough to sway my view. We'll just agree to disagree in the absence of a defined protocol. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(I just wanna note I definitely don't want to take credit, I didn't write the plot summary! I just reverted it! Winter04 wrote it!) QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I understood. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:03, 20 May 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.

Isn't the petition kind of a big deal?

I would think it deserves a mention somewhere in the article text. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Зенитная Самоходная Установка - audience reception section. It's back. Didn't notice it was removed. With the wide reliable source coverage, it should stay. Yeah and it's a million people, not a thousand. starship.paint (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Change.org is blacklisted and petitions aren’t generally notable, especially as there is no standard for verification of identity. There’s no reason to mention it. Toa Nidhiki05 12:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, the petition gained a lot of coverage from all over the media (news, articles, etc.) Petitions aren’t generally notable, especially as there is no standard for verification of identity. There’s no reason to mention it. is not appropriate for this topic. Maybe you should more than one guideline. And please don't remove it again without a consensus/reasonable edit summary. Sebastian James what's the T? 12:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t insult people in edit summaries again. Your belligerence violates WP:CIVIL. Toa Nidhiki05 12:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You are behaving obnoxious and superior manner against the topic and what is discussed here, and then accusing me just because I stated you were "someone who claims to be knowledgeable or an expert in something, obnoxiously dismissing the opinions, advice, suggestions, etc. of others." Really? Sebastian James what's the T? 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s not drama. You’re the person here launching random insults and I frankly don’t have a clue why. Toa Nidhiki05 13:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Explain why you are trying to make a big deal about it on an article's talk page then? You should probably start seeing your faults first and not dwell on this subject ever again, especially here, because I am uninterested in this whole "you are belligerent, I am the right one..." thing. Sebastian James what's the T? 13:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not making a big deal out of anything or claiming some sort of superiority, I’m just asking you to stop insulting people. Not sure why that seems to offend you so much. Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Am I? Then why are you the only one complaining about me "insulting people" and avoiding my comment (You should probably start seeing your faults first and not dwell on this subject ever again, especially here,) and accusing me on this irrelevant GoT season 8 talk page? You are the offended one since I "insulted" you and here you are, still writing nonsense and accusing even though I have already stated that I'd rather not communicate with you... Sebastian James what's the T? 15:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Because AFAIK you’ve only insulted me, coincidentally the only person here you disagree with. I only keep responding because you seem so offended by the idea that calling people smartasses and drama queens because they disagree with you is somehow a civil way to comment, although given you’ve been previously warned for making personal attacks you should know that. As for your personal preference, if you don’t want to communicate that’s on you, but this is a collaborative encyclopedia so you might not have a choice but to work with people you disagree with. You’ve surely been here long enough to know that. Toa Nidhiki05 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK you’ve only insulted me, --> don’t insult people in edit summaries again. (You are not the only person I disagreed with "concidentally", but somehow you are the only one who accuses me without a reasonable explanation.) I've already stated the meaning of the word, see above, apparently you don't know what it means. Everybody has a choice to choose the editor they want to work with and stay away from the editor they don't want. Wikipedia is full of editors, please don't try to change the issue, the problem here is you accusing falsely in the wrong place. If you have further brilliant accusations and don't want to get a block fifth time (March 2019 is the latest), go to WP:ANI or WP:IBAN. Sebastian James what's the T? 16:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don’t want to communicate, stop talking. It’s pretty apparent now that you see no issue with insulting people, so best of luck to you. Toa Nidhiki05 16:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course I don't want to talk, but I will defend myself until you stop accusing falsely. Everyone should defend themselves if they want to. And clearly this wake-up call prevented you from dwelling further. Sebastian James what's the T? 17:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not falsely accusing you of anything, unless you want to argue you didn’t randomly call me a “smartass” for removing a Change.org petition and a “drama queen” for suggesting you stop. I’m just asking you to act civilly (ie. stop insulting people in edit summaries) and it seems like you just can’t do it, which is kind of sad, really. But hey, you do you. If that’s how you want to act on a collaborative encyclopedia, not sure how far it’s gonna get you. Toa Nidhiki05 17:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL says that Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior", which is what smart ass stands for (someone who claims to be knowledgeable or an expert in something, obnoxiously dismissing the opinions, advice, suggestions, etc. of others.), and I think you should be careful about that. I'm not sure how "collaborative" will work when making a big deal about a tiny little thing and keep it going. Also don't make snide comments. ("it seems like you just can’t do it, which is kind of sad, really. But hey, you do you.") Bye. Sebastian James what's the T? 17:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What exactly was “smart assy” about this?

change.org is not reliable and petitions are generally not reported on. There’s a reason it’s blacklisted

I made that edit and you immediately snapped. Never interacted with you before, never edited here before. I don’t know if you added the Change.org petition or someone else did. I’ve literally never watched this show so I have no connection to anything here other than knowing a general Wiki stance not to use Change.org petitions So yeah, I was reasonably confused as to why you’d just immediately jump to incivility. When have I claimed to be an expert? You are beating a straw man. Toa Nidhiki05 17:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course there's reason to mention it. First, plenty of reliable sources have reported on the petition, there's already now 10 of them in the article, and I'm sure more can be found. Second, at least two cast members have responded to the petition, that legitimizes it. Third, 1 million is a big number - either the petition is mostly legitimate, and many fans are displeased, or the petition is mostly bogus, and a small number of fans are going very far in their displeasure. Fourth, the response is not unexpected given that Richard Roeper, for the Chicago Sun Times, wrote I don’t think I've ever seen the level of fan vitriol leveled at GoT in recent weeks. starship.paint (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Visual error with the RT graph

Not sure what's happened here, but is it possible to fix the problem with the graph detailing the Rotten Tomatoes scores for each episode? The cause seems to stem from the Episode 6 score of 4.8, as changing any of the scores to something else fixes the issue. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No idea what’s the issue. I put 47.999999 instead of 48 and it visually works. starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

. 71.69.168.164 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

RT score

As of today, RT suddenly has started to ignore all the episode reviews for the season and is displaying only season reviews now. What should we do? Sebastian James what's the T? 13:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Did archive.org save each individual page? starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RT has grown problematic as of late; I can foresee a time when we are going to have to reevaluate reviews from there, and that time isn't that far off. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, this archive has the numbers the sentence is referring to, the rotten/fresh counts aren't working properly, but the total number of reviews & average is there. QueerFilmNerd^talk 07:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused? As of right now, I'm looking at the season on RT and I can click individual episodes to see the rating, episode info and critic consensus for each. Either they changed it back or I have misunderstood what you meant by reviews. TheSameGuy (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

What they're referring to is on the season 8 page, instead of culminating all the reviews of all the episodes and tallying an average from that count, RT is now updating with "season" reviews as the whole season is out with critics putting in their two cents about the season and rating it. As noted in the critical response section, there was previously over 600 reviews from all the episodes, now it's 5 as there are fewer overall season 8 reviews. QueerFilmNerd^talk 07:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well frankly, does this project use every episode review as a season review? The average of all episodes is just that - it's not really meant to be a season review. starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Normally, RT collects reviews for each episode and reviews for the whole season then takes the average of the approval ratings and displays them as the official rating. The episodes' average is 68.16% and the season reviews' average is 66.66% which should've been shown as 67%. But it just shows 53% for no apparent reason. Sebastian James what's the T? 09:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes uses a weighted average, so you can't just do the math. Not every reviewer has the same importance.--Mazewaxie 15:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Then why is Avengers: Endgame, which has 456 critic reviews, has 95% approval rating? 431 "fresh" out of 456 equals to 94.5% which rounds up to 95%. No effect of weighted average as you can see. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't state that their Tomatometer uses weighted average either. Every reviewer has the same importance, it is not Metacritic. What's your point? Sebastian James what's the T? 16:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right. Anyway as of right now, GOT season 8 has 6 reviews, 3 fresh and 3 rotten, and still somehow has 58% instead of 50%.--Mazewaxie 20:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That's the problem. It was correct before May 24. For example, you can see that Killing Eve's second season score is 96% based on 97.4 (season reviews' percentage) and 94.5 (average episode approval percentage). They just use arithmetic mean. This proves that GoT's score is an error or something like that. Sebastian James what's the T? 22:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's an error; the season's score is somehow (I don't know the math) based on the reviews for individual episodes, as well as reviews for the whole season. --TedEdwards 22:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Full extent of Bran's title

@Jack Sebastian: For a short summary like this, you do not need to explain Bran's full title, just say he's king and readers understand enough to understand this article. The grammar error is in the sentence "Apart from Sansa asserting an independent North, the other Westerosi leaders proclaim..." The word other is erroneous, as Sansa is only mentioned in a clause. --TedEdwards 01:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you are wrong. As the nature of his title has changed, as well as the number of kingdoms he rules has changed, its important - especially in light of this being the finale - makes the information important to an understanding of the episode.

I think the grammar issue is exceptionally minor, as Sansa is one of the Westerosi leaders and using 'other' differentiates her from them; however, if you wish to bring up the matter with other grammarians, I will abide by a consensus to be found amongst them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards and Jack Sebastian: - I've inserted [1] a new, shorter wording. starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, I am not a big fan of it. You did see that bit about coming here to the discussion page to talk about this, right? Maybe do that, instead of editing unilaterally. Just a thought. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I did come here, and we are talking about it. What do you not like about it? starship.paint (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Talking about it first; clearly, its a point of contention (or at least back-and-forth), so the smart move was to discuss edits here first. Doing so usually serves to keep the article more stable, as an agreement can be found before the edit goes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)

Okay, yes, it would be more stable had I done a different procedure. Now, are you going to provide an explanation why you don't like the content? starship.paint (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with starship and ted here, the full extent of his title isn't needed, especially when we're limited to 200 words. There's only so much we can put into a 200 words summary of a 80 minute episode. What we have right now is fine. QueerFilmNerd^talk 02:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I wasn't aware that the 200 word count was etched in stone, especially since WP:PLCUT notes that "There is no universal set length for a plot summary". Of course, we don't want to get all wackadoo with the length any more than we want to go anorexic. We just note the events of the episode without exhaustive detail. Noting Bran's title as well as the diminuation of what he rules seems - to me, at least - somewhat important. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We're at 195 words, with the current wording being The Westerosi leaders (except Sansa) proclaim Bran Stark as king, Bran accepts, granting Sansa the North's independence from his rule. Is this clear enough? starship.paint (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make me repeat myself; my last post asks why a plot summary - arbitrarily set at 200 words - is appropriate for describing the events of an episode half again (if not twice) as long as a typical tv episode. Our guidelines set no hard and fast rule. Again, I am not arguing in favor of cruft, but for succinct details. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Current text: The Westerosi leaders (except Sansa) proclaim Bran Stark as their king, Bran accepts; granting Sansa the North's independence from his rule. starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

New current text: The Westerosi leaders (except Sansa) proclaim Bran Stark as their king. Bran accepts, granting Sansa the North's secession. Word count: 189.

And no one has addressed where this ambiguous 200-word count thing came from. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's good, thank you. Well, 200 words was listed at MOS:TVPLOT.

• In 2008 [2] to 2015 [3] it it was approximately 100-200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines.
• At the start of 2016 it was changed to [4] approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines, with the provision that articles using should not exceed 200 words in accordance with the instructions for that template.
• Somewhere in 2016 with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines was removed. starship.paint (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

So, what you are trying to say is that it varies. If you are sure that 200 words is the hill you want to die on, so be it. However, you seem to have read my previous post wherein I poointed out that this episode was 80 minutes - a full half hour longer than most GoT eisodes. Therefore, you might want to ease up on the reins there, hoss. |

TL;dr - yes, we should try to stay within the 200 wordcount, but due to the length of the episode, I am not going to lose even a tiny bit of sleep if we go over a bit in order to properly summarize the episode. Quality will always count more than quantity (or lack thereof). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Jack, I'm not even a regular participant at WP:TV. I've literally just started dabbling in this project. I provided you with that information to help your case. This isn't a battleground with me at the opposing end. starship.paint (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've just changed the wording of the plot slightly so it has a less clunky feel to it IMO. About 200 word limits, I think what is more important is understanding why these word count limits exist, rather than follow them blindly. They exist to help ensure plot summaries are actully summaries, not essays with way too much detail that is impossible for readers to absorb; and the purpose of the summaries on this article is to give a full season plot, grouping 6 summaries by episode. So, when I intially made a BOLD edit changing the wording, I did it not to decrease the word count, but to instead remove detail I thought, for this page, unnecessary and extraneous (obviously it did decrease the word count but, to be clear, that wasn't my reason for doing it). --TedEdwards 13:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Episode edits

THere seems to be a bit of resistance to certain episode edits, hidden as they are in other, less consequential edits. .org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Game_of_Thrones_(season_8)&diff=899142350&oldid=899131441I've addressed some of those, and will defend them here

• The Dothraki are apparently wiped out - I've removed this, as apparent is a subjective evaluation, not borne out by later appearances of a large number of them attacking the city in later episodes. They weren't 'wiped out', apparently or otherwise.

• Gilly is pregnant by Sam - who cares? Please point out to how this is a critical bit of information to include in an approximately 200 word plot summary. Gilly is only in the story because Sam is, and it can be argued that Sam is secondary to Jon's character in terms of importance. Therefore, Gilly is of tertiary importance.

• Cersei orders Missandei beheaded - we use the present tense, so 'orders Missandei's beheading' is more in keeping with the Wiki-EN writing style.

• Tyrion frees Jaime - he does so to have him convince Cersei to surrender. Ringing the bells is a sign f surrender, not the act of surrender himself. Mentioning the bells is kinda dumb, as Jaime isn't going to have the authority to order the bells to be rung.

• Qyburn's death - inconsequential to an understanding of the episode, given the constraints of the plot summary, as is using the names of the Hound or the Mountain. THey are brothers, which is mentioned, and that's all we need.

Disagree? Let's talk. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

1) So you, Jack Sebastian, say later appearances of a large number of [Dothraki] attacking the city in later episodes. They weren't 'wiped out', apparently or otherwise. and yet the text you inserted was The Dothraki are nearly wiped out in their initial charge. This does not make any sense.

3) orders Missandei's beheading, - that's just an order. It doesn't say it was actually carried out.

4) Tyrion frees Jaime - he does so to have him convince Cersei to surrender. - provide an exact quote or a reliable source? The dialogue does not indicate so. I would say the dialogue supports my version: Tyrion releases him so he can enter King's Landing and signal its surrender by ringing the city's bells; after which Jaime and Cersei can flee Westeros.

• Tyrion: "Escape ... do it. If you don't, you'll never see Cersei again. If it works, give the order to ring all the bells in King's Landing and open the gates, that will be our signal that the city has surrendered."
• Jaime: "I'll try."
• Tyrion: "I never thought I'd get to repay the favor. Remember, ring the bells and open the gates."

2) and 5) Our plot summaries are not as constrained as you state. Episode 4 is 191 words. Gilly's pregnancy is 5 words - it can fit. Gilly's pregnancy ties up her storyline with Sam. Episode 5 is 193 words. Qyburn's death is 3 words - it can fit too.

• How consequential is Drogon melts the Iron Throne, then carries Daenerys' body away?
• How consequential are the deaths of Lyanna, Edd and Melisandre?
• How consequential is the title of Bran the Broken?
• How consequential is he receives House Tarly's ancestral sword as a gift from Sam?
• How consequential is Euron entices Cersei to consummate their union?
• How consequential is Sam meets Daenerys, who reveals that she executed his father and brother?
• How consequential is Jaime later apologizes to Bran for crippling him; Bran replies he harbors no anger and says they are no longer the same people?
• How consequential is The Dothraki are nearly wiped out in their initial charge, and the Unsullied are overwhelmed. - there are so many of them left?
• How consequential is Ghost? Sometimes things are just part of the plot, they don't all have to be consequential.

6) You neglected to mention that you reinserted Jaime, Arya, and the Hound separately infiltrate King's Landing. This is inaccurate as Arya and the Hound were together. You also inserted Daenarys. You've not been careful.

7) You also neglected to mention you reinserted Daenerys indiscriminately begins leveling the city, burning soldiers and civilians alike. The focus here is the killing of people. Daenerys targeted people first and buildings later. She was lighting up the streets. Thus, my wording: an enraged Daenerys indiscriminately burns soldiers and civilians alike, and levels the city. :starship.paint (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(See, this is what good, productive discussion looks like)

First, regarding the Dothraki's numbers, I was one of those who thought the entirelty of the horde was snuffed out along with their torches in the night battle. Then, scads of them show up to mow down soldiers and civilians in Kings Landing. I guess those Dothraki fleeing the Army of the Dead back behind the gates were indicative of a larger number. I just don't know. Logic suggests that, had they been wiped out, there would have been fewer of them shown in shots of the attack on Kings Landing.

It doesn't matter who carried out Missandei's beheading; what does matter is that it was done, and that we use the proper present tense for it.

Logic and common sense has shown us over 8 seasons that very few people trust or even like Jaime Lannister; he's a douche of the first water by every account. No one is going to listen to a thing he says, much less follow his call to ring the bells to surrender the city. The point is that he is likely the only person who can get through to Cersei, both literally and figuratively. And she's the only one who can order the surrender of the city. Tyrion's smart enough to realize this. Sending Jaime to get the bells rung would have been a suicide mission, and Tyrion loves his brother too much to do that.

I am sorry, but your silence when the discussion about the 200-word summary tells a different story. The fact is, while Gilly (who doesn't even appear in the episode) might be an important loose end to tie up in an article about the episode, it is not important enough to include in a plot summary about the episode. There are far more important things.

Qyburn isn't important either; he's a MacGuffin to bring the Mountain back as Something Else.

Of course, you can debate the other little additions/removals as you wish, but you're missing the point that these tidbits are better suited to an article about the episode, and not a plot summary of the episode.

Regarding Daenarys (sheesh), you are just...wrong. Her first impulse was to destroy anything that could hurt her sole remaining child, then break open the barriers to the city than then, all the vengeance and rage devouring her, starts razing the city. She doesn't see the people; they are just part of the city that was denied her peacefully. She punishes. She destroys. There might be different interpretations to why she attacked the city, but she wasn't doing it to kill the people; they were just collateral damage and incidental to her goal.

Your observation about the Hound, Arya and Jaime entering the city separately is correct; I was correcting an edit that made it seem like they had entered the city like the Three Amigos was was factually incorrect. I should have crafted a replacement post better. I'll rectify that after posting here.

Anyone else? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Word count as per this version of the article:
ep 1: 172
ep 2: 171
ep 3: 176
ep 4: 193
ep 5: 179
ep 6: 198
- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

1) Right Jack Sebastian, so you think they weren't wiped out. We are in agreement. In that case, the article should not say there were decimated. We did not see their deaths, and we saw a lot of them later. Changed to The Dothraki's charge is immediately repulsed.

2) Go rewatch the show, Gilly appears in episode 4, talking to Jon and Sam as Jon bids goodbye. Come on.

3) I agree on Missandei also. The problem was that the wording contained "ordered". If I order a pizza, it doesn't mean it was made and delivered. Well, it's already fixed now to has Missandei beheaded

4) Come on, you're using your own interpretation against the exact comments made by Tyrion and Jon. No one is going to listen to a thing he says, much less follow his call to ring the bells to surrender the city. The point is that he is likely the only person who can get through to Cersei, both literally and figuratively. The show doesn't make sense, okay? They had bad writers. You are taking the approach that assumes it makes sense but it doesn't have to make sense. Please read/watch the show again.

• Tyrion: "Escape ... do it. If you don't, you'll never see Cersei again. If it works, give the order to ring all the bells in King's Landing and open the gates, that will be our signal that the city has surrendered."
• Jaime: "I'll try."
• Tyrion: "I never thought I'd get to repay the favor. Remember, ring the bells and open the gates."

Edited to Tyrion releases him so he can enter King's Landing, ensure a surrender signaled by ringing the city's bells, then leave Westeros with Cersei. Whether you think Jaime is to persuade Cersei or order to ring the bells himself, it's still "ensure a surrender". I hope that we can agree on this middle ground.

5) So you're arguing Qyburn is a plot device. So is Bran, so is Euron. They're still mentioned. This is 3 words.

6) starts razing the city. She doesn't see the people; they are just part of the city that was denied her peacefully. She punishes. She destroys. There might be different interpretations to why she attacked the city, but she wasn't doing it to kill the people; they were just collateral damage and incidental to her goal. - again, this is your original interpretation. What is literally seen (please rewatch the scene) is that Drogon's fire is along the streets where the people are. If Drogon were targeting the buildings, he would not keep burning the streets. Edited to an enraged Daenerys levels the city and indiscriminately burns soldiers and civilians starship.paint (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are seeing things either entirely skewed or just backwards, starship.paint.

The Dothraki weren't "repulsed"; at the time, it looked like they had been all but annihilated. Only at the battle of Kings Landing and the aftermath did we see any appreciable numbers of them. Repulsed doesn't accurately describe the results of their charge against the Army of the Dead. Decimate is; look it up.

THe sentence about Missandei's death has been changed to:

" Cersei defiantly refuses Daenerys' demand to surrender and has Missandei's beheaded before an enraged Daenerys and Grey Worm."

That should prove to be more than adequate.

No, we aren't going to find a middle ground between your preferred version and what it should be with regards to Jaime's task.

I think there might be a slight misapprehension on your part as to how plot summaries are handled. They aren't citable; they rely solely upon our consensus view as to what we interpret from the primary source. It is the only place (outside of discussion and user pages) where that can happen. Therefore, consensus guides the final product of plots summaries. To my mind, Jaime is sent by Tyrion because he is the only person who can convince Cersei to surrender. As well, Jaime has zero authority to order anyone to do anything; he's the Kingslayer, and pretty much despised and mistrusted by everyone in the capital. Furthermore, Cersei is the only person who can order a surrender. Lastly, Jaime's sole goal is to get to Cersei. He doesn't stop to fight anyone. He doesn't stop for an ice cream cone or to visit his old rooms. He went to Cersei, seeking to accomplish both tasks, get her to surrender and to escape with her in the confusion. The evidence for my interpretation seems (imho) pretty spot-on.

As mentioned before, as interpretations of the primary source (the episode itself) are allowed, I think I've made a pretty strong case for my viewpoint; it also has the virture of being backed up by the showrunners themselves.. I'll be reverting it back to the better version, unless you can convince us all that your view is better than the official explanation by the showrunners. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Star on the Jaime talk, the dialogue is stating that Tyrion is telling Jaime to signal the surrender. As Star said, whether this makes sense or not in the context of the show is debatable, but not a lot made sense this season. The dialogue is there, and it's saying that Tyrion tells Jaime to signal the surrender if he gets Cersei to flee with him.QueerFilmNerd^talk 02:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@QueerFilmNerd and Jack Sebastian: - my apologies. There was a part that I missed out before that exchange, see below. Jack's wording is correct. I have struck my above posts. starship.paint (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Tyrion: "... she's going to die unless you convince her to change her course of action ..."
• Jaime: "Whenever have I (garbled, can't hear) to convince Cersei of anything?"
• Tyrion: "Try."

A And while we're at it, let's put the reason why Tyrion sent Jaime into Kings Landing, as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Shifted your comment. I've already acknowledged you were right. starship.paint (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Dothraki

The Dothraki weren't "repulsed"; at the time, it looked like they had been all but annihilated. Only at the battle of Kings Landing and the aftermath did we see any appreciable numbers of them. Repulsed doesn't accurately describe the results of their charge against the Army of the Dead. Decimate is; look it up.

@Jack Sebastian: - look at the funerals in Episode 4. We can see around 11 rows and 8 columns. Let's assume there's a further 2 columns off-screen. The nearest row of pyres have about 10 people each. The behind rows of pyres have about 30 people each. Nearest row x 10 columns x 10 people = 100 dead. Behind 10 rows x 10 columns x 30 people = 3,000 dead. Total = 3,100 dead in total. Didn't Dany have tens of thousands of Dothraki? Even 30% is not a decimation in the common sense of the word (not the Roman sense). Also, it looked like = apparently. starship.paint (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Sigh, let's put this thing to bed, shall we? We have cited information that says they were decimated. Even though plot summaries don't require cites, we cannot be cited. So, an evaluative word like, say, "decimate" should be supported. And...boom. Now, will you give it a rest? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And while we're at it, let's put the reason why Tyrion sent Jaime into Kings Landing, as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Your source is from after E3 and before E4. Look at the later sources. [5] If you think that Daenerys has far too many people in her Dothraki and Unsullied army, you aren’t alone. Many people are wondering the same thing, since the Dothraki seemed to be wiped out mostly in the Battle of Winterfell (during “The Long Night” episode.) [6] one by one the lights were seen to disappear as the Dothraki men appeared to be wiped out. Fans of the HBO series took to Twitter to share their shock at the Dothraki’s return with huge numbers. They were apparently but not really decimated. If you say they were apparently decimated, I'm okay. If you say they were decimated, it's not okay. starship.paint (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I understand what you are saying, Starship.paint; I thought they'd been wiped out. The visual of those flaming swords winking out in the darkness was intentionally striking. I thought the horde was No More. But lo and behold, there they are in the invasion of Kings Landing. So, we're looking for the appropriate wording:

An Ouchie < Decimate < Annihilate < Wiped Out < nuked from orbit (the only way to be sure).

That's the sliding scale that I'm dealing with. I welcome some fair suggestions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

We saw the flaming swords wink out, and a few came back in a zoomed-in portion of the battlefield. That seems like most were dead, but we didn't actually see any dead. My suggestion is simple: The Dothraki are seemingly decimated in their initial charge. starship.paint (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Using words like "seemingly" or "apparently" are giant red flags - in Wikipedia writing, at least - of weak writing and OR. We need to find a word that works without implying any vagueness. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well we didn't see them die in the battle (it's only inferred), we didn't see a lot of corpses, and then we saw a lot of them alive at King's Landing. It's fine in this instance to use seemingly because it's the show that was vague. Did you miss the two sources above saying "appeared" and "seemed"? starship.paint (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I saw at least one of them. There was even a Reddit thread asking about where the hell all the Dothraki came from, as they were appearently wiped out at Winterfell. Jokes were made, lolz were had.,,

Here's the problem: plot summaries can't have references. Therefore, we cannot point out that one or two sources used wussy vacuous language. We have to find the correct path that incorporates most of the recaps. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The correct path is to simply write that they were seemingly decimated. If that's bad writing - that's the show's bad writing. That's not us. Again, the show did not show us either deaths or tens of thousands of corpses, so we can't be sure how much of the Dothraki actually died. starship.paint (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like PNW Raven has presented a pretty good alternative. The editor offered as an alternative, "The initial Dothraki charge is decimated"; a pretty ingenious solution, if you ask me. A pity the editor isn't contributing to this discussion, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sandor Clegane

There is an issue about Sandor Clegane's name. For the purpose of the summary, he should be consistently referred to by one name, preferably "Clegane" as that is what the majority of the characters call him. He is referred to as "The Hound" indirectly. It has also been a derogatory name for him. He should also not be called "Sandor" as the only character I can think of who ever called him that was Arya at the very end. This was to show how her feelings about him had changed.

This is NOT a Game of Thrones fan site. It is an encyclopedia, so it should not be assumed that all readers are overly-familiar with this character and his various names. Suddenly switching to calling him to "The Hound" is confusing and can lead non-fans to assume it is a different character. It appears that some want to revert to calling him "The Hound" when it is juxtaposed next to "The Mountain" because it has some sort of symmetry. Gregor Glegane should probably be referred to as "Ser Gregor" as that is what he is directly called.PNW Raven (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@PNW Raven: precisely because this is an encyclopaedia, we should not be taking an in-universe point of view. The fact is that there are two Cleganes, and that calling one of them simply “Clegane” is a potential point of confusion for our readers. Imagine calling someone “Lannister”, “Stark”, “Tyrell”, “Bolton” etc. There would not be confusion if we used “Sandor Clegane” and “Gregor Clegane”. starship.paint (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to using Sandor Clegane. I objected to the switching black and forth of his different names and suddenly calling him The Hound or Sandor, and also calling Ser Gregory "The Mountain".PNW Raven (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)m

Okay, I'll change it. The article currently says Clegane ... engages Gregor Clegane. This is exactly the scenario to cause the most confusion. starship.paint (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hold on there, my compadres - not so fast. Throughout the entire series (not books but the series), they were referred to by their nicknames, Hound and Mountain. It is the ones we should use. I agree with PNW Raven in that the terms shouldn't be mixed. Any references to the Clegane's given names shouldn't be there.

Don't worry; I've fixed it. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Jaime Lannister's Wounds

It is NOT known if Jaime's wounds were "mortal" as he did not die from them. He might eventually have died from them but he also could have survived. Euron's claim that he "killed" him was unsubstantiated. Maybe it is unclear to some what "mortal wound" means, but it means it would have been fatal. PNW Raven (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They absolutely were. You know there is a difference between mortal wounds and fatal wounds, right? Fatal wounds are the ones where yu take a dirt nap, like, right away. Ask Missandei (too soon?). Mortal wounds are those that are going to eventually kill you, but not right away. Beric had these. As did Jorah. As did Euron. And, as did Jaime. Euron even pointed it out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out, Euron could not definitively say if the wounds were mortal. That is what he wanted to believe. PNW Raven (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

He announced to the world, pinned to the ground by Jaime's sword (another one of those mortal wounds, btw), that he was "the man who had killed Jaime Lannister". Both combatants knew the wound wasn't the 'stick a bandaid on it' sort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Neither Euron nor Jaime are doctors, so I’m not sure that you could say they KNEW the wound was mortal. Certainly, Euron believed it was mortal. By virtue of continuing all the way to meet Cersei, it seems the wounds are not that serious (this is bad writing, obviously). starship.paint (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, bud. I'm looking at the primary source, and it suggests something different. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Does saying the season received mixed reviews need a source

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.

---

{{.@Sebastian James: I invite you here for a civil discussion about whether saying the season "received mixed reviews" needs a special source. I am of the opinion it doesn't need it because a) The season reviews mentioned on the article (which I have checked) gave a range of views and b) Rotten Tomatoes cites 3 positive season reviews and 5 negative ones, which is bascially the definition of mixed. --TedEdwards 14:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you also say this would apply to the episode articles as well? The last two episodes don't have a mixed/good/negative review consensus. Do these even usually have RS's in film/TV articles? QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If we have an equally mixed bag of good and bad reviews, I don't think its inappropriate to note that the reviews have been mixed, and don't think its necessary to note a source to say so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, there is no consensus here. Just some thoughts from editors. And now I "criticize putting the phrase is." You are implying a conclusion not stated by the sources, which violates WP:OR. As I said before, being "rotten" doesn't make something mixed. 10 reviews are not enough to say that it got mixed feedback. The only source we can use is Metacritic for now, which mentions that the season gained "generally favorable reviews" (even though it contains the reviews of premiere episode only). I don't care about your nonsense anymore, that's why I wasn't aware of this discussion until now. Sebastian James what's the T? 16:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am going to stop you there, SebastianJames; you are making increasingly more mistakes in your post, and we kinda need to nip this in the bud and get you back on the straight and narrow path to writing an article (pardon the mixing of metaphors).

First, the Lede of an article is summation of the contents therein. If we have an equal amount of reviews that pro and con the season, we are supposed to summarize that the reviews are mixed. Full stop.

Secondly, if consensus is not the "thoughts of editors", what precisely do you think consensus composed of?

Thirdly, hell fucking yes, a whopping ten reviews are absolutely enough of a sampling of sources to make a determination of whether reviews are mixed or not. If not, what level of sampling are you prepared to consider as adequate?

Lastly, the next time you call a fellow editor's comments nonsense, you will learn the very hardest of ways how tendentious editors are left in the cold when it comes to the warming assumption of good faith.

With respect to Ted's comments below, I think we are done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, you should have been aware of the discussion because a)it shouldn't be a surprise that a discussion was started when we had a edit dispute, b)I pinged you, and c)I cited this discussion in this edit summary. I you ignore "my nonsense" or anyone else's "nonsense" by refusing to discuss, you can't complain when someone edited like the way I did here or here. And what do you mean "no consensus"? Until you bothered to come here, no disagreed with me writing "The season received mixed reviews", therefore there was nothing to discuss, and therefore I had (unaminous) consensus. These "thoughts from editors" was enough for me to say I had consensus. If that isn't true, when would I have consensus? When I and editors who support my view have wasted our lives arguing for a sentence when no one is disagreeing? Also, you are the only editor I have come across who has disagreed with saying stuff similar to "The season received mixed reviews" on any article I have edited (which is mainly TV articles). And as on most TV episode/season articles, it does say whether the episode received positive/negative/mixed reviews, I would recommend getting a consensus at WT:TV across all TV articles.

So, to reiterate my opinion; I believe a source is not needed to say the season received mixed reviews, as we cite several reviews, of which some are positive and some are negative, we can say the season has mixed reviews. That's all that needs to be cited, although RT backs this info up, citing 5 reviews it calls positive and 5 it calls negative. This is enough to say the season received mixed reviews, as there aren't many critics who write full season reviews, so 10 is comparatively quite a large sample. If you don't respond within a reasonable time, I will revert your edit, on the assumption that you wouldn't care if I do. --TedEdwards 17:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You received 2 replies, one asked questions and the other said "I don't think its inappropriate to note that the reviews have been mixed". This is not a consensus. You can't have consensus with only two comments. You had "(unaminous) consensus" from only one reply? At least read "consensus" on Wiktionary: "A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members." I can complain your revert, because you are also violating WP:STATUSQUO (not surprising, because that nonsense has been happening since Doctor Who issue). It seems you also don't know much about Rotten Tomatoes; season 7 of GoT, for example, shows "Season Reviews: 51". 10 is "comparitively quite a large sample" indeed. Most of the TV articles don't even display a summarization of reception, not even films do, they let the sources speak for themselves unless a source that states "positive/mixed/negative reviews" etc. For me, your point is bland, boring and not worthy of discussion. Sebastian James what's the T? 18:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ted's assessment, as indicated by my directed post at SebastianJames, above. Party on, Ted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah Jack, your comment is the final point. You have already supported their opinion, now you come here and be a fanatic ("pArTy On") and think that consensus has been reached? Good story. Sebastian James what's the T? 18:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Seb, I am not supporting their "opinion"; I am stating how we follow Wiki-EN policy and guidelines. So far, they are in line with it.

And I think you might want to watchBill and Ted's Excellent Adventure before you get all 5th grade with your comments about my 'fanaticism'; how often am I going to interact with an editor named Ted. And seriously, Seb, who uSes mIXes capiTal letters all goofY-like with lower-case? What are you, NINE? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have been using this account since I was two. Are you gonna read WP:OR and WP:STATUSQUO, get information and comment about the content more than the editor since you claim to know the guidelines and policies? Try to be versatile and neutral (your comments above are never associated by a policy or guideline, you are just supporting to use summarization because "reasons".) Your boohoo about an editor is not welcomed here. "Party on" somewhere else, Jackie. Sebastian James what's the T? 08:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Why did you call me a sockpuppet? --Mazewaxie 08:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mazewaxie: Seb's trying to act as if your account is a sock of my account. Maybe they should at little more closely, and noticed that you and I don't edit the same topic areas, and are also evidently from different countries. In any case, he's just being really uncivil, as per usual. --TedEdwards 13:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: - If you think there is sockpuppetry going on between TedEdwards and Mazewaxie, report it. Of course, the fact that you are in opposition with both of them in, like, the lamest argument ever, they might take a dim view of your motives. But go ahead, Seb- you do you.

I understand both what OR and STATUSQUO are; so doyou, since you claim to have been editing "since you were two years old". Make your point. Every single edit I have ever made is based in policy and guidelines. lets see if you do the same. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If there's disagreement about whether a source is "needed", then a source should be provided. If nothing else, it beats the heck out of arguing about whether a source is needed. It will also ensure that nobody comes along later and removes the info for being unsourced, or slaps a CN tag on it, or what-not. Why even bother arguing about the need for a source? That said, in terms of reception, is there an issue with letting the sources speak for themselves? Why must a summary be provided? DonIago (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Donlago, you've been here long enough to know that Ledes don't use citation, except when facing considerable disagreement amongst a number of editors. In this case, we have one little fellow that thinks he's a consensus all by his self. It would be, you know, adorable, if it wasn't such a lame argument.

But, because you think it needs to be there, I'll be inserting at least three different references that explicitly note the reviews were mixed. Hopefully, that will be the proverbial bat to the forehead of any further dissent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Postscript: I added four, which I personally think is overkill but hey, the next step was using hand-puppets to illustrate basic research and editing. I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Four citations is too much. The first one from CNBC says The show’s final bow received mixed reviews from long-time fans. The second one from Mashable says While many agree that most of the final season was a rocky, unpleasant road to go down, reactions to the series finale have been mixed. Some critics walked away unsatisfied, others had a handful of emotions, and a few felt content with how things wrapped up given the lead up to the end. Both reliable sources that together cover every aspect of "The season received mixed reviews from critics and fans alike." There is no need for citing more sources per WP:CITEKILL. Please remove the last two of them yourself. Thank you. Radiphus (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that four is too much, I think it is a good exercise for some of the less-experienced editor in the room to see how the rest of us work to decide which sources to use of the four. As there is no hurry, would you be opposed to waiting a day, giving others a chance to voice their opinions as well? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, i don't have a problem, but since both involved editors (you and i) agree on the issue, i don't see why not act on it directly. Radiphus (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, two people aren't really a consensus, unless they are the only two editing the article. Here, there are two others (not counting you and I); TedEdwards and Seb James. Both should weigh in. The latter is quite...tantrumy when they feel excluded. There isn't a hurry, so let's give them a day to contribute constructively to the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, you may classify this as lame, what is the lamest thing is that this user kept seeking for attention from me, writing threats and toxic comments, then finally decided to provide sources. He couldn't do it in the first place. Awesome, right? Sebastian James what's the T? 05:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever. At the risk of overlooking WP:DFT, no one has threatened you; take all your drama to your mama, because we cannot be bothered. Lastly, instead of whinging on about how we needed a source for a statement that doesn't need sourcing, you could have rolled up your sleeves and done the work yourself. Instead you bitched and moaned and got all pissy about it until someone else did it. And for what? everyone here thinks you're a douche. I'm sure that you will find that serving you well,for whatever time you have left before your eventual indef block.

We're done here, unless you have something else you want to complain about. Because, you know, this discussion page is about the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, 2 sources would be O.K. Four is too many IMO, because it makes the article harder to read. --TedEdwards 19:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool, @TedEdwards:. @Radiphus: had selected the first two sources I added. Do you prefer those to the other two, or do you have any opinion on the subject? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. Just two sources that do the job really. So the first two are fine. Done. --TedEdwards 21:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think 3 of 4 editors means a consensus for now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, still trying to seek for attention. Consensus was needed until the sources. Now what, ten days full of bemoaning? Take a wiki-break and get a life. Sebastian James what's the T? 13:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you have something to say that was related to the article? If not, consider that, in searching for additions of fucks, we have none to give. Seek them elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one can see Consensus was needed until the sources.. Unlike you, I didn't suggest watching Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure in the first place, no relation to the article whatsoever. Then you went full bullshit and claimed to know the guidelines and policies, while you don't even know how to write a lead for an article. Then you continued to try seek for attention on other talk pages, and even harrassed others when you had no right. There is only one "we", and it is you. Continue to think that other new sections written by me "peripherally involves you", as you did here, where you appeared out of nowhere (not surprised) and attacked another editor just because they appeared out of nowhere. It looks like you will always be a bully with a low-life. Sebastian James what's the T? 14:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: I have to agree with @Jack Sebastian:. Just look at Rotten Tomatoes (for example): out of six episodes, the first three are "fresh" and the last three are "rotten". That's the exact definition of "mixed" reviews. I don't see why you started all this edit war, since there is no reason at all to discuss, and you even called me a "sockpuppet" only because no one agrees with you. --Mazewaxie 14:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is already solved, at least read what is written above. As I have explained before, not writing edit summaries and continuing the edit warring without joining the discussion about it on the talk page was the reason, and I don't see any logic behind this poorly written sentence: you even called me a "sockpuppet" only because no one agrees with you. What? Why would I call only you sockpuppet then? You weren't even involved on this discussion before. Think before you write something. You should also read WP:OR, "fresh" or "rotten" reviews cannot represent "mixed". Sebastian James what's the T? 16:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then let me know why did you call me a "sockpuppet". Explain it to me. --Mazewaxie 17:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ignore his nonsense, Maziewaxie. The contributor is a waste of everyone's time. He edit-warred the fuck out the article because he couldn't roll up his sleeves and find in over two weeks what I found in four minutes. Some people would rather complain about a world of shit than have someone see them work a shovel to clean it up. Seriously, this person isn't worth your effort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, you are crying again. You might as well be awarded for "most whining person alive". I and Maziewaxie already talked about it between us. And I was expecting you to butt in this issue too. Nobody is duty bound to do your work. You should be the one to provide sources if someone contradicted your opinion about them. At least I know how to write an article. Now, piss off and cry somewhere else again. Sebastian James what's the T? 21:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you still arguing the point you lost? Don't go away mad, honey. Just, go 'way. lol - Jack Sebastian (talk)}}

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.

Continued discussion

Jack Sebastian, to Sebastian James's point about WP:Synthesis, I don't see that the two sources left state that the season received mixed reviews. Those two sources are about the series finale receiving mixed reviews. So why do you think it's acceptable to state that the season received mixed reviews? GoneIn60 and Gonnym, any thoughts on this? And, Jack Sebastian, don't close down this subsection either. I'll just open it back up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

And Doniago is also right. I'd rather not have to start an RfC on this, but I will if that WP:Synthesis is not fixed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for stopping by; fresh insights are great to have.

Secondly, I closed the previous discussion, since it had devolved into name-calling and topics almost completely unrelated to the subject being discussed.

Thirdly, I think it is a bit less than good faithto suggest that A) I closed the section to stifle discussion. I pointedly took my hands off the wheel of the discussion while others decided what reviews to use in the article,and B) question me about WP:SYN, when half the time, I am explaining it to folk just like you.

Fourthly, I am unsure where you are arriving at the idea that the reviews don't address the mixed nature of the reviews since the word mixed is contained within the friggin' title. Yes, they address the finale, if all you do is read the first sentence or whatever, but if you take a moment to read the actual sources (as well as look at the other sources in the section - not provided by me, btw) that note the steady decline in positive reviews, you see that most of the resistance to noting the mixed nature of the reviews was fueled mostly by emotion, and not sourcing.

And recall that this is an overview article - it is meant to cover the scope of the series, not individual episodes - most of which had more than their fair share of disappointed reviews after the initial blush of 'oh-great-new-GoT-after-2-years-of-waiting'. The entire season had that to contend with. That the majority of the reviews deal with the finale only partially obscure the disappointment that began during the series and culminated in the finale. I guess you could call that synthesis as well, but the alternative is to include a apoitive and negative review from each episode in the criticism section. We couldn't evaluate whether there were more or less per episode because that would in fact be actual synthesis.

So yeah, maybe tone down the hate, brother; it doesn't suit you well. If you want to argue the merits of the sources provided, that's cool. You want to attack me, there are better places to address that than here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you "closed the section to stifle discussion." I was thinking that you did, but I didn't suggest it. So you coming to the conclusion that I suggested it indicates to me that you were aware that it could be seen as trying to stifle discussion. After all, you stated, "After much back and forth, an overwhelming number of sources were provided, then scaled back to two. Problem solved." WP:Synthesis was still there after you reduced the citations to two, however. Those two sources (which I analyzed before commenting here) are about the finale; that's where I got "the idea" that they are about the finale. They do not say that season 8 received mixed reviews. That is why an editor resolved the issue with this edit by using a different source that actually says season eight received mixed reviews. I'm not sure what hate you are talking about. And I'm not a "brother." What I knew was that I was not going to sit here and debate you on something that was so obviously a WP:Synthesis violation and that I was not going to get into the type of back forth that went on with you and Sebastian James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn:Respectfully, that's just simply bullshit, Flyer. Say I went to a page you were editing in and suggested that you shouldn't be a tendentious asshole who makes suggestive comments about female editors. By your reasoning, I'm not actually saying that you do either; I'm just suggesting that you shouldn't do either thing. When you say, "And, Jack Sebastian, don't close down this subsection either. I'll just open it back up", you are absolutely suggesting that that is what I have previously done. Brother, I can count on one hand the times that i have ever closed a discussion, and then you go and suggest I did it to stifle conversation. Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining; you are far too seasoned an editor to claim that you didn't say something that you clearly did.

So, instead of making the discussion about me it would have been child's play for you to head out and find sources that note - unequivocally - that the season started accumulating negative reviews as it went on. And yet, you did not. I personally find that annoying; like someone would rather bitch about a problem instead of fixing a problem. My efforts were to solve a problem, ad find consensus to do so. So, popping in randomly and complaining while doing nothing to solve the problem kinda makes you look a bit less than useful.

Summary: son't play passive-aggressive games with people who can spot it coming a mile away. As well, instead of complaining about a situation, propose solutions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Long sigh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And in the future, don't expect people to solve your problems. "Do it yourself" goes both ways. I was not going to fix anything myself for the text in question with your attitude and penchant to revert. I saw that you were wrong here on this talk page. And I weighed in, as I have every right to do. I will not respond to any more nonsense you post in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, spare me the passive-aggressive bs, Flyer. I called you on your bad faith post, so suck it up and accept have been caught and spotlit. As for not responding to my posts, that suits me just fine. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on the sources I've come across, there are quite a few calling season 8 "divisive" and "mixed". So while it may be acceptable to include "mixed" in this article, I'm not sure the single source citing that claim at the moment is really the best choice. If I felt strongly enough about it, I'd probably replace it with better alternatives like these for the simple fact they elaborate more:

"one of the most divisive seasons of a TV show in recent memory" – Digital Spy

"The show's last season...struggled to impress critics" – Screen Rant

"The reviews for the final season...have been mixed to say the least" – PopCulture.com

My 2¢ anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)