Talk:Game of Thrones/Archive 6

Removing every Infobox Image from episode articles
I’m posting this here so that we have a central location to discuss this issue, as this affects every Game of Thrones episode page. A forewarning; I have not edited on Wikipedia for some time so my terminology and tact may be lacking, so apologies ahead of time. TedEdwards has removed nearly all of the Infobox images from each episode’s page and has dictated that WP:NFCC renders this needed because "these images do not significantly increase reader’s understanding of the topic". I have my own issues with this logic as I, for one, find these images incredibly helpful. As I said, I have not edited for a long time and just enjoy reading articles. I found this removal to be quite jarring from a reader's perspective, as the images help me to associate which episode page I am viewing without having to read the entire plot section. Perhaps some editors feel the same way about that; I'm not sure. But that’s my own personal opinion. The more pressing matter is how it’s being determined which images stay and which ones go. This user has (thankfully) established a subpage that explains his rationale by episode, and I find the explanations to be incredibly subjective. I advise everyone to view the explanations, as I found them to be quite flawed. All the reasons listed are purely subjective. Another cause of concern is that certain images are allowed to stay because the actors in the image had an acclaimed performance, for instance Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken. Yet this episode and actor did not receive much acclaim, rather it was quite the opposite. Meanwhile, the Infobox image which included Tyrion on The Laws of Gods and Men was removed and no mention was made of Tyrion’s performance on this editor’s subpage, despite him being nominated for an Emmy for this episode’s performance. This whole process reeks of subjective opinion and just general disarray. I can go on and on with the flaws of this system but I’d like to keep this short and allow more experienced editors to weigh in.
 * Image didn't add anything,
 * Image for the sake of it, 
 * I don't think Benjen is a major enough character to need a photo of him, 
 * Changed my mind after remembering that the scene shown wasn't originally scripted,
 * Image really conveys Fairly's acclaimed performance

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


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


 * Note limited number i.e. not using them on all bar one Game of Thrones' episode article. Hence I've removed most of them, bar a few which I thought did have merit. As said by Templeowls17, I created a subpage at User:TedEdwards/Game of Thrones image removal, explaining the removals. -- Ted Edwards  00:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is on every file page of every screenshot of a TV show on Wikipedia, and it does dictate that the use must be limited, but each of these respective images was only being used on their respective episodic pages, save a few (White Walker, etc.). I do not think that it is appropriate at all for a single user to delete them all, and then back it up with a subpage filled with subjective reasoning, especially when these images did not to appear to violate any other fair use rules. I think the far more appropriate measure is to take the discussion to each page you find an issue with, start a discussion on the talk page, and try to generate some consensus on whether the image should be kept, changed, or deleted altogether; not deleting every single one except a few you deem worthy based on your subjective thought. And you did not address my concern of you singling out actors/actresses' performances (Michelle Fairly, Alfie Allen) and allowing their respective images to stay, but not applying the same rule evenly (if you can even call it a rule). One could argue that every actor's role has received critical acclaim, especially compared to those two, who really haven't received much acclaim at all particularly at awards shows. Again, this is just a very flawed way of rationalizing all of this. I hope to add some sort of discussion notification to each episode's page so that we can get a bit more discussion, as its lacking at this point. Thanks.--Templeowls17 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how this is any different from cover art for any other media having separate images for each subsection (such as sporting events being entitled to have a different poster for event). Surely there is a component for these images meeting the identification parameter. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my stance as well. At least for me, these images are critical and useful to identify the episode article I am viewing.--Templeowls17 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * From an NFCC perspective, cover art is covered by NFC per WP:NFCI because it relates to official branding and the like from the copyright holder of how to present the work. Even if that branding is not explicitly discussed, it is considered appropriate to include. But this does not extend to a infobox screencap from an episode because now WP editors are determining what the "branding" of the episode should be, and that cannot be done without sources to avoid NOR. Now if there were a title card, that would be fine, and rare cases episodes have explicit promotional images (like some eps of Doctor Who). But most don't. So any image used in the infobox has to be selected with NFCC#8 in mind: that it is based on a scene or the like that is part of sourced discussion (from RSes) about the importance or visual effects or something akin about that scene, as to remove the OR nature.  And we're talking about very specific scenes. Say a guest star had a critically praised role, but no scene was commented on directly, you could not use that to support a screencap image. --M asem  (t) 13:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't a more specific instruction and rationale for the use of these screenshots fall under the guidance of Non-free television screenshot, as TedEdwards himself stated? These screenshots undoubtedly help identify the episode, along with offering critical commentary of the episodes' pivotal scenes. Not to mention these images were low resolution and they had limited use; the overwhelming majority were only used on that respective episode's article. I am by no means a free-use / image expert but this seems to adhere to those rules pretty straightforwardly. Ultimately though, I do agree with some of your points, particularly the branding aspect. My main issue is the way in which these images are being removed. Its basically just one editor's subjective take on it. For instance, Blackwater's image was retained, but | Beyond the Wall's was removed, despite being nearly identical image styles and both episode's receiving numerous visual effects accolades. The logic here is all flawed. --Templeowls17 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to check TempleOwls, the visual effects for wildfire in "Blackwater" are directly referenced; the dragon breating fire at wights in "Beyond the Wall" is not directly referenced, just a few vague mentions of visual effects, which could refer to many things in that episode. Also, about "The Rains of Castamere" and "The Laws of Gods an Men", Fairley's performance in that specific scene is praised (critical reception section talks about reviews of the massacre, and acclaiming Fairley's performance for that). And you don't need an image to "identify" the episode, the lede can do that (giving a bit of undetailed plot info). And for a show like Game of Thrones, how does the image for, let's say, "Valar Morghulis" allow you to remember that Winterfell burned down in that episode (or any other plotlines in that episode)? -- Ted Edwards  18:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wildfire is directly mentioned where? In the caption? So why not edit the caption in Beyond the Wall to include "dragon fire" rather than delete the image? Maybe I'm unclear on what you are referring to; please elaborate further. Secondly, because "Valar Morghulis" is widely known as the first episode where we see an actual White Walker (and not a silhouette), rather than the episode where Winterfell is burned down. You see this image and immediately know which episode article you are viewing. And in regards to "The Rains of Castamere" and "The Laws of Gods and Men", the reception section of "The Laws of Gods and Men" clearly praises Tyrion's performance in the trial scene, which was shown in the Infobox image . He was also nominated for an Emmy for this episode, which Fairly was not. Now I'm not saying an Emmy nom is necessary for an acclaimed performance, but it certainly causes it to be notable. And this is not the only inconsistent application of this rule; you've deleted numerous Infobox images of praised performances yet kept Fairly's and oddly Allen's.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * O.K. I missed the stuff about Dinklage's acting specifically in the performance, so sorry, but his perfomance isn't conveyed from the screenshot that happened to have been chosen, he's just looking a bit cross (also I swear the screenshot and caption don't line up, the camera was looking towards the left of his face when he demanded the trial by combat); it's not like Fairley's, where her performance is very much evident (or Allen's, which I don't understand why you complain about it more than Fairley's, but I left that image more because of the controversy surrounding that scene, not as you make it out to be, as being solely due to his performance). About Blackwater, it says in the article The special-effects department developed a catapult that fired bags of burning green napalm for the wildfire explosion, but decided to instead color regular fire green in post-production. As William said, even if image make it a bit more convienent, it does not necessarily increase understanding. A short plot in the lede allows you to figure which episode it is, and shows all the plots, not just one. About your answer to my Valar Morghulis question, I was trying to make the point that an image of a White Walker does not remind you that Tywin becomes Hand of the King, Winterfell gets burned down, Jaqen gives Arya the coin, and Daenerys enters the House of the Undying. You would have to know these all happened in the same episode for the image to be of any help. -- Ted Edwards  20:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your last point first; how is one image supposed to show you every storyline from that episode? That's like saying this image must be deleted because it does not show Arya's continued training in Braavos, Jaime and Bronn fighting the Sand Snakes, or Jorah and Tyrion captured by slavers. That's not a reasonable argument. And in addition, you would not "have to know these all happened in the same episode for the image to be of any help". The White Walkers literally have no connection to any of the storylines you listed. Secondly, Beyond the Wall has 2 - 3 paragraphs detailing the battle which that image showed; that image does more than simply convey "dragon fire". Lastly, in regards to Tyrion in "The Laws of Gods and Men", his entire performance was acclaimed. Any picture of him at the defendant's stand is appropriate, but particularly the one selected, as its showing the climax of the episode. I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but you likely missed it because you were deleting these images at 30-40 seconds a pop. Nowhere near enough time to evaluate detailed articles to see if the image helps further the reader's understanding of said article.--Templeowls17 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Masem's take on this. The de facto branding (by OR, no less) is a huge problem. Perhaps more importantly, though, all 10 criteria at WP:NFCCP have to be met for inclusion of non-free content. Notice that "convenience" isn't a criteria. Criteria #8, Contextual Significance, reads: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. That last part is key. Omitting the images is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject. Yes, one may have to read a little more of the actual text to associate an article with a particular episode one has already viewed, but that is a matter of convenience, not understanding. As for the suggestion that all images should be returned and a case made individually to remove each one, that is not how this should work. Due to the nature of non-free content, the default should be to not include non-free images until an individual case is made (and accepted) for including each image, i.e. why is a particular image necessary to increase readers' understanding of a particular article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm among the belief that one user should not be yanking down 70+ images within a 32 minute time span at the height of this show's notoriety and viewership. Rather, some consensus of editors should be generated beforehand, particularly when the reason for removal is related to a "reader's understanding of the subject", a very subjective question and even more subjective when you are determining this in less than 40 seconds an image. He even notes in his subpage that he doesn't know why he made certain deletions and reverts them; likely because he went on a rapid deleting spree without actually analyzing "does this image enhance the reader's understanding of what's presented in this article". I would also disagree with your notion that "Omitting the images is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject". Images certainly do help with understanding; isn't that why a handful of images on episodes' articles were kept? Multiples images were not deleted because the images ties to a scene in the episode that was critically acclaimed, yet this rule was not applied universally. Several images were deleted despite them helping to show the viewer why a scene or actor was critically acclaimed or ridiculed. I recommend you actually read the reasons why he deleted what he did, and hope you see the same flaws in it as I did.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So I'm not allowed to change my mind? When you say I spent less the 40 seconds per image, that's not really the case, that's just a mean. Quite a lot images were very clearly images for the sake of it which showed nothing, so required little thought, but some, like The Red Woman took me longer for me to decide. And "my rules" are consistent, it's based on whether the image can be described in words without negleting to convey important detail that can only be shown in an image; some images managed to convey this relevant detail, but most didn't. -- Ted Edwards  20:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you are not being consistent. Your reasoning for keeping the Blackwater (Game of Thrones) image is that the article has 1 sentence regarding how Wildfire was created via special effects. So that's enough to warrant an image. Yet, The Red Woman has multiple paragraphs dedicated to how this visual effect feat was pulled off / the acclaim surrounding it, but is deleted. None of this makes any sense. --Templeowls17 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The picture for Blackwater actually showed the effect, the picture for the Red Woman did not. Simple as. If a image can be replaced with words, without losing any relevant infomation that can only be conveyed with pictures, get rid of the image per WP:NFCC, as the image would not increase a reader's understanding. -- Ted Edwards  23:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image for | The Red Woman showed the effect as well. It is Melisandre recreated as an older woman through practical effects along with CGI, which the article details. No different than Blackwater's image, which is also created through CGI and an attempt to use practical effects, which the article details. Please explain what I am missing here. If you want to delete every image because of WP:NFCC, I can at least understand your standpoint. But you picking and choosing 8-10 images that can stay based on your subjective reasoning of "the image would increase a reader's understanding" is even more frustrating., because you are not applying it universally. And then you delete 65 with minimal explanation. Nothing is stopping another editor from just reverting your changes and saying the opposite of what you say in the edit summary (Image does add to the understanding something, Benjen is an important character, etc.) and then starting an editing war, as neither one of you provide detailed explanations or consensus. This is why you should be taking this to the talk page of each articles; discussing and collaborating on what's best for that article. This discussion regarding The Red Woman is a good example of how thorough a discussion about one image can be. The idea that 72 images can be analyzed by one editor, in the time that you did, is not appropriate IMO, but I'm happy to dive into each image with you if necessary (perhaps on each of their talk pages).--Templeowls17 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The image has to add relevant knowledge to the article that can't be described in words to meet WP:NFCC. If it doesn't, the image has to go, because it's possibly illegal. For instance, Second Sons. While the wedding scene I grant you was mentioned several times throughout the article, the image itself shows absolutely nothing that can't be described in words, and saying the location being mentioned was reason enough for being readded is tbh a stupid argument because the location was a studio (often locations aren't a reason to keep. because if it's not a studio, where an image isn't necessary, there is a free image alternative of just showing the filming location e.g. Azure Window in Winter is Coming). If an article mentioned something about designing the Sept, that image could be used (although a wider shot would be better). And where did I admit the image for The Laws of Gods and Men was "wrongfully removed". I did say I missed a sentence about Dinklage's performance, but that was right before I said his perfomance isn't conveyed from the screenshot that happened to have been chosen. Don't put words in my mouth. -- Ted Edwards  18:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the the Second Sons image. That should be changed and I'm happy to work to ensure a proper image is there or none at all, yet you don't have a counter to my The Red Woman point but still revert my change. You are starting an editing war by simply reverting all my changes on other articles with a blanket statement despite me placing detailed reasons why these images should remain in the edit summaries. You have already been warned by one editor to refrain from editing wars.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am also not putting words in your mouth. Dinkalge's entire performance is acclaimed. Any image of Dinklage from the defendant stand properly convenes his performance. That being said, the picture is right before he asks for a trial by combat, the most climactic point of the episode. I cannot think of a better image.--Templeowls17 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed the Laws of Gods and Men image, to avoid futher dispute, on where he says "I demand a trial by combat", as it better shows his performance. It might not show for about another week though due to a glitch of the old image still being on Wikipedia. But click on the image to see what I've uploaded. -- Ted Edwards  19:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC) The image that should be displayed is this one. Seems I see the old image on the article when using Chrome but not in Incognito mode. Tell me what you think :) -- Ted  Edwards  23:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC) About the images you readded, I added dummy edits for all of them explaining the reason I removed them, after I reverted without giving with reason other than keep the page without image during a dispute (I thought I'd explain them here, but then changed my mind). The exceptions are Winter is Coming, where I forgot to make a small change to the page allowing for the dummy edit, and Second Sons, but I explained that above. I've now put in a dummy edit for WiC, that has saved. I don't think you noticed these edits, although you did revert my dummy edit for Walk of Punishment rather than the revert itself. Anyway, I find some of your arguments pretty weak. One is you suggested keeping the image for Walk of Punishment partly due to the music. tbh I don't get that argument because it sounds like "I need a new bed because I want to learn to drive" (i.e. makes no sense). About The Bear and the Maiden Fair, nothing is said about that scene in the critical reception section (unless that scene was the final scene; if that's the case, that needs to be made clearer), and the production section only talks about the bear used and inserting said bear into a shot filmed in Northern Ireland. The effect does not need an image to help describe as it's fairly basic. I changed my mind about And Now His Watch Is Ended fyi; I intially removed because I felt the performance was more due to shouting in Valyrian, but the facial reaction conveyed also shows her performance. -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed  E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  23:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I very much like the new image; I think it works perfectly. My reason for returning the images was partly caused by the fact that these images were only on each of their respective page, in accordance with limited use rules. Since you removed them, they have all now been deleted, rendering this discussion rather moot. Given the subjective and ongoing nature of this discussion, I thought it more appropriate to leave them on their pages, as they have been for years, while we discuss but that time has now passed. And I apologize, as I did not see your dummy edits. However I still think the correct action after my revert was to take the discussion to the talk page, rather than reverting my reverts and potentially starting an editing war. I understand WP:BRD is not an official policy, but it is the preferred method of handling these matters. In terms of your other points, while I did list "music" for a reason to keep Walk of Punishment, I also listed props, writing and effects as well. These four facets are all detailed in length in the article. With these four things detailed, the image gives the reader a good understanding of how they tie together. While obviously a image cannot convey music, given the grotesque image shown, it definitely increases readers understanding of the scene. Especially given the controversial nature of the musical choice following Jaime losing his hand, which the article details. For The Bear and The Maiden Fair, the final scene is Brienne battling the bear. If you read the sources, the reviewers are referring to Brienne v Bear as "a spectacular moment", "gorgeously staged". The reception section should be reworded to directly apply to the fight rather than the "final scene", but that is not a valid reason to remove the image. It's the reception section being poorly worded, not the image being improper. And in terms of the production of the episode, this is just a subjective crossroads. I very much feel like the bear being shown helps the understanding of the article. The trainer of the bear had to be digitally removed and a reader could see how that looked in the actual scene. Again, I don't think it's fair to just remove an image because you personally feel like it wouldn't further other people's understanding, especially when myself and others (the person who uploaded it) disagree with you. That being said, all of this is pretty much wrapped up as the images have been removed. I don't have much Wikipedia time on my hands but I intend to try and re-upload some new ones that hopefully meet both our criteria. Thanks for chatting.--Templeowls17 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * About the file pages being deleted, I'll try to list what the images were off roughly on my subpage, so that they can still be discussed. I'm sure the captions will remind me what they were. Then, images can be selectively restored.

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

Hearing your view on the Bear and the Maiden Fair has managed to change my mind, so I won't protest if the image is readded. Rather than uploading an image though, I would recommend going to WP:RFU and mention it's intent to be used (and make sure you quote me here). However, I haven't changed my Walk of Punishment, a free image of the props is shown (see WP:NFCC), and the image can be simply described as "Locke (suddenly) cuts Jaime's hand off". -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  17:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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


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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019
In the "Cast and characters" section, please champ the link for Gilly (A Song of Ice and Fire) to Gilly (character). 2601:241:301:8CCF:8049:C797:C357:C39D (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done QueerFilmNerd  talk 03:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Reception section at The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones) article
We need opinions on the following matters: Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones) and Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones). A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Edit request under "Cultural Influence"
The last paragraph ends with "...during the seven first seasons of the show" but I believe the intended wording is "first seven seasons".
 * ✅ Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2019 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Game of Thrones Oslo exhibition 2014 - Weapons.jpg

Up for deletion Myrcella Baratheon
This is the vanguard of a second wave of an AFD offensive on Game of Thrones-related characters. Note also that there's a proposal to prevent new users from commenting at AfD. That might be significant for such a high-traffic article and so provides good context. I've added lots of sources. WP:Hey, but more is always in order <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Metacritic scores for seasons 6, 7 and 8
The reviews collected on Metacritic for seasons 6, 7 and 8 are only reviewing the season premieres. I think it's misleading to present those Metacritic scores as the score of the whole seasons. Aquila89 (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Which season 8 episodes should we highlight in the lead as having especially received criticism?
As seen here, here and here, Hummerrocket and I disagree on how to relay the following text: "The final season, especially its last two episodes, received significant criticism for its condensed story and creative decisions, with many considering it a disappointing conclusion." While I think it should state "last two episodes" because it's the last two episodes with the lowest Rotten Tomatoes ratings ever for the show and that received the most criticism for the season, Hummerrocket thinks it should state "last four episodes" because "The Long Night was criticised for its White Walker handling, and s8e4 also received criticism for its condensed story. This is covered in depth on their respective pages. [...] as noted in s8e3 and s8e4 articles, they also received significant criticism and had much lower scores than other episodes."

My response to Hummerrocket's argument is that that the season as a whole received criticism. "Especially" should refer to the two episodes that were rated lowest on Rotten Tomatoes and are most debated. Going by some sources, one might conclude that "The Bells" episode alone is the most controversial episode in the show's history. Yes, more so than the rape of Sansa and the debate over whether Jaime raped Cersei. As made clear in the Game of Thrones (season 8) article, while a petition to HBO for "competent writers" to remake the eighth season of Game of Thrones in a manner "that makes sense" was started on Change.org after "The Last of the Starks" aired, it wasn't until "The Bells" episode aired that it went viral; that is when it gained momentum. A lot of momentum. People were absolutely livid when it came to Daenerys's villain arc, and more people than ever were declaring the show ruined. By the time the last episode came after "The Bells", more people than ever were pretty much over the show and were hoping that it would at least end somewhat decently. But so many people (most) didn't like the way it ended. And so these last two episodes are lowest-rated ones on Rotten Tomatoes.

Regarding the lead, another option is to simply not mention any episodes for the sentence. But, to me, we might be remiss to not mention those two episodes in the lead. They should also be briefly mentioned in the "General" subsection of the "Critical response" section. I realized that they currently aren't mentioned there.

Thoughts? LuK3? I'll alert WP:TV to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * After going through reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and standalone critic reviews, it looks to me the specific criticism was directed at the last two episodes, specifically "The Bells". The first 3 or 4 episodes of the season did get mixed to positive reviews, as showed at Game of Thrones (season_8). The focus of the criticism of the final seasons lands on the last two episodes. Having said that, I am not opposed to removing especially its last two episodes from the lead entirely. I think we all can agree that the last season have significantly more negative critical reception than previous seasons. --   LuK3      (Talk)   14:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion to remove this phrase from the lead and place it in the critical response section. Considering the season has only 6 episodes, 2 episodes is already a big chunk of the season, vs a season with more episodes (eg 10-15) this may be more appropriate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but final season as a whole was criticized (~58% on RT). Just my two cents! Hummerrocket   (talk)  01:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are correct, the entire final season was negatively received, especially in relation to previous seasons. Flyer, how does removing "the last two episodes" entirely from the lead sound? --   LuK3      (Talk)   01:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Above, I mentioned that the season as a whole was criticized. But I argued that the "last two episodes" are the "especially matter." That is because of sources like this Global News one stating, "Game of Thrones fans have been especially vocal over the last several weeks as the final season of the show heads towards its conclusion. Fan outrage turned white hot after the penultimate episode last Sunday, when Daenerys incinerated King’s Landing — along with children and other innocent people — with her dragon, showcasing her descent into madness." And sources like this Digital Spy source states, "The Change.org petition was actually created following the events of episode 4 'The Last of the Starks', which ended with the death of Missandei (Nathalie Emmanuel), but went viral and picked up huge momentum after the divisive fifth episode 'The Bells', which was criticised by fans of the show for the way it handled several character arcs." It was "The Bells" episode that was seen as the last straw. But as is also clear from above, I suggested removing mention of any episodes for the sentence. So, yes, I can go with that for a compromise. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, keep in mind that the first two episodes of season 8 -- Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) and A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms (Game of Thrones) -- have high ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. And The Long Night (Game of Thrones) is at 73% on Rotten Tomatoes. So it's not like the whole season received a poor reception. But those last three episodes? Yikes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request
In the cast and characters section please replace "the tall warrior Brienne of Tarth" with "The lady Knight Brienne of Tarth" RoboJesus3 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Tall warrior" describes her character throughout the fictional series. "Knight" only describes her character after one has watched S08E02. See MOS:REALWORLD for writing articles about fiction from the real-world perspective instead of an in-universe perspective.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In several instances, 'a semi protection' for editing should be implemented. It is silly a general edit - for example changing a caption like "Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau portrays members of the Lannister family: Tyrion, Cersei and Jaime." as the verb should be third person plural 'PORTRAY' not third person singular 'PORTRAYS' - cannot be made easily.
 * ✅ Thanks for the report. TwoTwoHello (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Game of Thrones stained glass.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021
let me change is to was 86.99.225.217 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's correct as is; TV series don't stop being a TV series just because they are complete; they function the same way a film, book or any other piece of fiction do. See MOS:TVNOW. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

English?
Hi, in the Criticism section there is the sentence "Greyjoy's emasculation was one of the only sexual assault scenes where a male was the victim". I'm not a native EN speaker, and this sentence has me confused. Is it the only scene, or is it one of the few scenes? If not, what does "one of the only" mean? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree, it can be the only or one of few, whichever is correct. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thx. I'd fix it, but the ref is behind some accreditation wall or pay wall, so Loki knows which claim is correct. A task for future generations. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch, though. I've added a Template:Clarify clarify request to the phrase in question. Bazza (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

False narrative
This article is a prima facea example as to why Wikipedia will only ever be where lazy people go when they don't have the inclination or the gumption to search out information for themselves. The article was created organically as the series were broadcast. An analogy of this type of article creation can be summed up with this example of the old joke about the optimist who falls from a skyscraper and is heard to say passing every floor "so far so good". The thing is we all know what is going to happen. The same thing can be said of GOT now the series is over. The heaped amount of praise on this production that litter this article falls to nought now the serie is complete. GOT should be remembered for promising so much but ultimately failing in the most egregious way possible. However, reading this article is like following the path of the optimist and the skyscraper, it's all positive with a a few little conclusions that it wasn't so good after all. That is not an honest approach. Wikipedia has a policy called WP:UNDUE this article fails this rule. The general consensus is that GOT ended its eight series run in a pile of doo doo, it didin't go out on a high it went out in incredulity and ridicule. Where's that in the article? A few sentences here and there saying "hey its last season drew some criticism" is creating a false narrative. GOT has become one of the most pilloried series in history. Even some cast members have spoken out and said they were disappointed with the whole story arc.

Wikipedia exists on the fallacy of effort that time invested in its articles creates quality. Too much congitive dissonance is diplayed on this site between what is honest, factual and verfiable and what is randomly cut together cut and pasted quotes that fit a moement in time or opinion of the editor(s) writing the article.

Now that GOT is well and truly over (three years past and counting) this article should be shaken down and rewritten from the perspectice that the series is over, it didn't end the way the hype and expectation in its early years would have suggested. Articles written in real time always fail this way because there is no hindsight or ability to undertsand the bigger picture. GOT might have been great to start but it's not the great series this article is trying to perpetuate. It's pushing a false narrative and should be heavilly rewritten. Just do a search for "game of thrones disappointment"
 * For example:


 * Emilia Clarke Admits Disappointment in Game of Thrones Ending
 * Game of Thrones' Biggest Losers Were the Fans
 * Game Of Thrones Season 8 Is A Disappointment - Here's How We'd Fix It
 * The Final Season Of ‘Game Of Thrones’ Made The Entire Series Unwatchable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.66.157 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. Gather your best sources (and don't forget to cite them when you edit), there are probably university-published texts on this series by now, and start improving, bit by bit. Try to find better than denofgeek and screenrant if you can.
 * My advice is to pick one subsection, work on that until you (and whoever feels like participating) think it's ok, then move on to another one. Save the WP:LEAD for last, and don't forget WP:PROPORTION, this article has a lot of sub-articles. Take your time, there's no rush. You need to get WP:AUTOCONFIRMed first since the article is protected, but that is quite doable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Section Copyright infringement (outdated information)
That section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_of_Thrones) has the following text:
 * "According to Polygon, HBO's relaxed attitude towards piracy and the sharing of login credentials amounted to a premium-television "free-to-play" model."

Among other text in "Copyright infringement", said section gives the impression that torrenting or "piracy" or the Game of Thrones series is not really cared about by the copyright owners (HBO, et al.). This is outdated information. As of February 2022, malevolent monitors of Game of Thrones torrents send out copyright violation notices to the ISPs who control certain IPs which have been seen to have downloaded Game of Thrones torrents. In my case, I downloaded these six Game of Thrones datasets via the BitTorrent protocol:
 * magnet:?xt=urn:btih:ef2b336896a6a8d78396f70e32ad56fdef0a43a0&dn=Game.of.Thrones.Season.8.720p.%5bHashMiner%5d&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969
 * magnet:?xt=urn:btih:8e3a154bfe71ee1364761fa04cdf4fc0e4aa62d8&dn=Game.Of.Thrones.S03.Season.3.1080p.5.1Ch.BluRay.ReEnc-DeeJayAhmed&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969
 * magnet:?xt=urn:btih:d52d76984fc82985f90fe0be1bcc9d29762776b7&dn=Game%20of%20Thrones%20Season%207%20Episode%20All%20(1-7)%20720p%20HDRip%20x264%20by%20MovHot&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3a1337
 * magnet:?xt=urn:btih:d0fc2584c1d57de6f38f917e094297d05fc2e5bc&dn=Game%20of%20Thrones%20Season%204%20(1080p%20x265%2010bit%20Joy)&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969
 * magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b2cf792f92a56662ce826b8a30f4832d1846d792&dn=Game.of.Thrones.Season.6.720p.BluRay.x264.ShAaNiG&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969
 * magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6a378a8fe70af90d5a8b5a22a35ac4a3d7741548&dn=Game.Of.Thrones.S05.Season.5.1080p.5.1Ch.Web-DL.ReEnc-DeeJayAhmed&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969

I finished downloading them in 2021; however, I did not remove them from my BitTorrent client. Sometime in 2022 I seeded them / uploaded the files to other peers who were using the BitTorrent protocol. As a result, copyright trolls sent me emails threatening legal action unless I ceased and desisted. You may call my experience "original research"; however, if I link to screenshots of the emails, then it is no longer original research. And I really have no reason to lie about this.

From this section at this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_of_Thrones&oldid=1068103152#False_narrative = "Too much congitive dissonance is diplayed on this site between what is honest, factual and verfiable and what is randomly cut together cut and pasted quotes that fit a moement in time or opinion of the editor(s) writing the article." (bold mine). I live in the United States, and as a result I have been compelled to remove the above linked torrents from my client.

Search Wikipedia for Game of Thrones talk about "torrent" and "bittorrent":
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=bittorrent&prefix=Talk%3AGame+of+Thrones%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&fulltext=1&ns0=1
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=torrent&prefix=Talk%3AGame+of+Thrones%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

Search archive.org for Game of Thrones info about "torrent" and "bittorrent":
 * https://archive.org/search.php?query=torrent+%22game+of+thrones%22
 * https://archive.org/search.php?query=bittorrent+%22game+of+thrones%22

--User123o987name (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * are you suggesting an improvement to the article or just moaning that you got caught doing something illegal? – 2 . O . Boxing  10:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting an improvement. Pointing out that the info is outdated implies that more recent information should be added. I may find a link that also points this out; either today or in the future. --User123o987name (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It may not just be outdated information but incorrect information also. Counter to the idea of "HBO's relaxed attitude towards piracy":
 * July 19, 2017 https://torrentfreak.com/game-thrones-pirates-monitored-hbo-warnings-way-170719/ "Game of Thrones Pirates Being Monitored By HBO, Warnings On The Way . . . The company is monitoring various popular torrent swarms and sending thousands of warnings targeted at Internet subscribers whose connections are used to share the season 7 premiere of the popular TV series."
 * May 7, 2016 https://torrentfreak.com/hbo-warns-game-of-thrones-pirates-removes-torrents-160507/ "HBO Warns Game of Thrones Pirates, Removes Torrents . . . HBO is going all out to limit Game of Thrones piracy. The company is sending out thousands copyright infringement warnings to alleged pirates . . . the company is requesting torrent sites to remove Game of Thrones torrents, at a rate rarely seen before. . . . HBO generally seems quite cavalier when the piracy topic comes up . . . Since the start of the new season the company’s anti-piracy partner IP Echelon has sent thousands of warnings to ISPs, urging them to take action against alleged pirates." --User123o987name (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lena Headey Primetime Emmy Awards 2014.jpg

Costuming & Production Design.
FYI, Bernadette Banner has given a thorough and intelligent evaluation of the Game of Thrones costuming that you might want to look at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7aBLEio6J8. She has had Broadway costume department experience, is an NYU graduate, and has studied historical clothing. She has gained quite a bit of notoriety since launching her YouTube channel and has done a video for the YouTube Glamour magazine channel evaluating the costumes in the original "Mary Poppins" film.

In addition, production design encompasses the whole visual image of a film or show. As the Wikipedia page puts it, "... the overall aesthetic of the story." But you don't offer information on that topic. Please add it to the article as I find it very interesting and so will others.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC), Edited Wordreader (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding cast members on the main page
Game of Thrones is a TV show with a large cast. However, it only has 40 or so series regulars, whereas shows like True Blood have over 50 series regulars and that show gets to have it's full cast of series regulars on the main Wikipedia page. I request to be allowed to give the main Game of Thrones Wikipedia page the same treatment.


 * Out of curiosity, I counted the characters mentioned at Game_of_Thrones, there are about 45. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually there are exactly 43. Which is why I said "40 or so". So what is the answer to my request?


 * I have no idea. This is a WP:GA, which indicates it's considered to be in generally good shape compared to articles that are not. Would it be an improvement to add X characters to that section? I don't really have an opinion atm, but it's not obvious to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * However, you can be WP:BOLD and see what happens. Or wait for more comments. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I consider it to be an improvement to show the cast members in that section because it seems natural to do so.


 * I think the reasoning behind formatting the main cast section this way is because whoever originally did it figured there were too many characters to list them out (as is typically done). That's also probably why there is a link to a separate article just for the GOT cast, and that includes everyone. RaCJ1325 (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The Sopranos, which has a similarly large starring cast, credits only actors that starred in every season on its main page. Would this not be a workable solution to this problem for GOT? ClintsWayne (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with this idea. I believe the infobox should list some of the cast members. The actors are generally the most notable aspect of a TV series and for none of them to listed in the infobox, which serves as an overview of the article's most important aspects, seems like an oversight. The infobox lists 9 executive producers and 8 producers (most of which don't have Wikipedia articles) but no cast members. I think a list of the top 10-12 actors would be sufficient. Actors who were regulars for all 7 seasons were: Peter Dinklage, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Lena Headey, Emilia Clarke, Iain Glen, Kit Harington, Sophie Turner, Maisie Williams, and Alfie Allen. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also note that these are listed as the main cast members later on in the article, so putting them in the text box would be consistent with that ClintsWayne (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Season 7 was downloaded twice by every person alive?
Under the section describing copyright infringement, we are told "Season seven was either illegally streamed or downloaded an average of 14.7 billion times"

If we assume for the sake of rounding, that there are about 7.5 to 8bn bn people on the planet, this would be nearly 2 illegal downloads of the complete season per person? And as good as the show is, there are a vast swaythes of people who didn't have any intetest in watching it at all.

Has this claim been fact-checked? Is the source credible enough to accept this claim? 2601:CF:300:4B70:743E:52D1:81B4:8D85 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What the source (Variety) states : "The seventh season of “Game of Thrones” has been illegally downloaded or streamed more than 1 billion times. [...] the seven episodes of “Game of Thrones” season seven each averaged 14.7 billion illegal views through Sept. 3. Within the first 72 hours of its initial broadcast, the season premiere was illegally downloaded or streamed more than 90 million times. The season finale was illegally downloaded or streamed more than 120 million times within its first 72 hours." The sentence in the WP article is not entirely accurate to the cited source, I'll copy edit. --Lapadite (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

4K HDR and its Title card
This HBO series has 4K HDR, Dolby ATMOS + Vision on 4K UHD Disc and HBO Max. The title card was modified for the final season, with the opening credits changed after the seventh season. CastJared (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @CastJared What are you proposing? Bazza (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The source from Game of Thrones Fandom states: Unlike previous seasons, the eighth season's sequence also seems to be strictly abiding by the events of the show, therefore changing many aspects in the process. For example, the theme of sigils is present throughout previous sequences, but are removed in the latest version. The title sequence also clearly highlights House Lannister's control of King's Landing, removing the sigil of House Baratheon, despite Robert Baratheon being deceased since the first season (even more so when one considers House Baratheon of King's Landing and its effectiveness as a puppet of House Lannister). For the eighth and final season.
 * Also, (Polygon) stated that it added 4K HDR into HBO Max since they did it on 4K UHD Blu-ray.
 * Categories needed to be involved, like Television controversies in the US, and made by Home Box Office. CastJared (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @CastJared You need to be clearer. What actual change are you proposing?
 * Note that WP:FANDOM, WP:BLOG and other self-published information are usually not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Have a read of WP:RS to see what is. Bazza (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I proposed changes about the title card and the picture and audio format to include 4K. CastJared (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @CastJared I disagree with updating the infobox image, or adding any caption to it. It's fine as it is for representing the whole series.
 * If you want to add more picture and audio information to the current infobox, then use the information already in the article to do so. If you'd like help to do this, then you can ask here, stating clearly what changes you'd like made. Bazza (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

To briefly add on to what Bazza 7 has said above, Fandom is a wiki hosting service that anybody can edit, similar to Wikipedia. It's for that reason that wikis are usually not considered reliable sources. See WP:UGC and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for an explanation as to why we need to use other sources in our articles. Any content that isn't supported by a reliable source is likely to be removed, particularly on high traffic pages such as this one. — Manti  core  19:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft article relating to HBO controversies
Hi, I know that HBO made controversies surrounding it's original programming as a draft, as Draft:HBO controversies. CastJared (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @CastJared, you should be aware of WP:CRITS which seems to discourage, if not forbid, such content. You might notice that this talk page's article contains no such information. Bazza (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I know. CastJared (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)