Talk:The Queen's Justice

Coatracking in "Writing" subsection
Please explain this edit. Your edit summary makes no sense. The fact that it's a quote from one of the writers doesn't make it about writing: he's also one of the showrunners, and the whole interview was about the casting and performance of Diana Rigg -- throughout the series. Do you understand this problem? It is sometimes difficult to tell whether you know what you are talking about. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "She’s probably the only character to win her own death scene" is obviously about the story, not the actor. Plus you can always move that quote to the casting section instead of removing it. - AffeL (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. They gave the character her own death scene because they love the actress. You can maybe spin that to be about writing more than casting, but only by making assumptions about what he meant by "only ... scene" -- if, and only if, he was talking about the only death scene in this episode, then it belongs in a discussion of the writing of this episode (maybe). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is assuming. But that quote is still about the writing. - AffeL (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you are the one who is making assumptions. Those two have written a lot of episodes, and they've been the show-runners from day one. If they praise Diana Rigg immediately after describing the original casting meeting in which they decided on her, it is not a reasonable assumption that they were talking specifically about the writing of this episode. For NOR purposes, it is also not a great assumption that they were not talking specifically about this episode, but we must always bear in mind that NOR is about not including things in the article: leaving stuff out based on talk page "OR" is perfectly acceptable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The last part.. "She’s probably the only character to win her own death scene" is related to writing, as it's about the character/story = writing, not the actor. That's a fact, not an assumption. But you can divide the part into two, put the quote about Diana Rigg the actor in the casting section and the part about the characters in writing section. - AffeL (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be getting this. What does he mean by "She's probably the only character"? Does he mean in this episode, or the season, or the entire show? I think the last is most likely, but that's, again, just my assumption.
 * And what does "win" mean? I initially misread it as "get", in the sense that she is the only character to have her own extended death scene, which is certainly true of this episode, but not of the whole show. But I now think it's more likely that he was referring to how she metaphorically "beat" Jaime even in her own death scene. That's a bit POV (I thought, for example, Stannis went out like a bit of a badass, and certainly he came across a lot better in that scene than the unilateral judge-executioner of Brienne), and, while the writer's POV is more noteworthy than mine, it has nothing to do with "writing" as a "stage" in the "production" process, and in context, even in the context you quoted, looks like it is a lot more about Rigg's performance than the script anyway.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if it he means this episode, season or entire show? "Win" means that she went out like a boss. I think he meant the entire series, rather than just this episode, even if i agree that Stannis did go out as badass. If you are so against it being in the the writing section, then I have no problem moving this quote by Weiss to the casting section instead. Would that be better? - AffeL (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It would. Please do that. I'm under 1RR, so I would really appreciate it if you would stop reverting all my edits first and asking questions later. You should have opened this talk page discussion before reverting me, rather than demanding that I do it. I still think the article would be better with the quote simply excised: the show-runner's claim that she is the only character to die like a badass is wrong, and both you and I agree on that; I am sure you could go back to earlier seasons and find PRIMARY sources tied to the show making similar, mutually contradictory, claims about other characters/actors -- why wouldn't they, since they are trying to sell the show as it is now? But in the short term, moving it is better than not moving it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking of negative criticism
Also, AffeL, you removed the text phenomenal", but remarked that "Littlefinger is a boring non-character spouting cliches, Cersei's revenge tour is torture porn on a level with the Ramsay Bolton heyday, and Euron is quickly becoming too ridiculous to take seriously, even though he makes me laugh." without explanation. This is inappropriate. You took a mixed review and whitewashed the negative parts. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That was an obvious blackwashing, that was removed. The quote before was a summary of what the reviewer note about the episode, but you decided to give such a heavy focus and weight to 1 negative part out of over 100 positives. - AffeL (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A quote can't be a summary. You took one piece of positive criticism out of context. That is not a summary. The writer was critical of Littlefinger -- you will not find many reviews with a positive impression of that character and his scene, and probably very few even said that it was not the actor's fault and he did a good job. The review was mixed, and it had things it was not hot on. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A quote can be a summary.. the person first gave his taught of the episode as a whole, then went to talk about the different parts of it. As far as I know, about 80-90% of what he wrote was positive. But yet you decided for some reason to give the small negative part the same attention. - AffeL (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If 80% of a review is positive, that's a not-insignificant amount of negative criticism. The only reason I can't find that in most of the other "reviews" you are citing is that they aren't objective "reviews" but plot recaps by people who weren't trying to write detailed reviews of what worked and what didn't. If no one thought that the Littlefinger scene was good, and everyone thinks Littlefinger has become a non-character with no clear motivation and none of the wit or cunning he had in the first four seasons, then deliberately refusing to acknowledge that in the article is inappropriate. You are piling positive quote on positive quote, without any regard for the negative criticism some aspects of the episode (and the show) have attracted. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not against adding a negative criticism, it's just the way it was put. - AffeL (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The way it was put? The only part of my text that wasn't a direct quotation was, but remarked that! Is "remarked" POV language? Would "said" have solved the problem? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the episode has received mostly a very positive reactions, I think and it would be better if the negative criticism would go at the bottom of the Critical reception section. Like how other highly rated films or episodes articles are written. - AffeL (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the episode has received mostly a very positive reactions, What do you mean? Some aspects of the episode (a first year acolyte curing greyscale and the Citadel letting a quarantined patient go only a few hours later, Littlefinger doing whatever he was doing...) seem to have been met almost universally with groans and sighs from critics, who ultimately came to the conclusion that those aspects weren't important enough to say the episode overall was more bad than good. Let alone that most of the "reviews" you are quoting are episode plot recaps, not "reviews" that are in a position to "praise" or "critique" aspects of the episode. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception of Baelish's scene/character
Hey, the bit that bothered me most about this was that it blanked the criticism of the Baelish scene, but I haven't seen any praise for it anywhere. Cersei's revenge torture porn was ... disturbing, and I liked it, so I don't have a dog in the fight over whether we cite critics who didn't like it, and I actually like Euron where the majority of critics seem to agree with Ryan (so while WEIGHT and NPOV says we should include the widespread criticism, I personally would prefer if the criticism was less widespread). But with Littlefinger, I agree with Ryan, and apparently most critics do.

Can anyone find any critical reviews of this episode (or any season 7 episode) that disagrees with the view that Baelish is a shell of his former self and at this point is apparently just twiddling his fingers waiting for the show to end? I feel like if Ryan's view is that he is a "boring non-character", and no mainstream critic can be found who disagrees, then the criticism should not be whitewashed as it has been.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, this source essentially agrees, as does this. The latter is about the previous episode, but, but I'm sure he'd say the same about this one if it came up in either his unserious recap or his serious Q&A (the latter of which probably won't be out til Friday Japanese time). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Confused by "Cast" Section
I'm confused by the intent behind the "Cast" subsection under "Production." Usually, there is a "Casting" section, and it would discuss things like the casting process for a particular role, or how a cast member was added, replaced, or removed, or perhaps information about how a bit of casting was announced, etc. This current "Cast" section appears to be sort of a repository for interesting information that comes from the cast members, but most of that information appears to be about the filming of the episode--things that happened on screen or on set, rather than in the casting process. So I would prefer to see most of this content in the "Filming" subsection, though perhaps a little bit of the information, like maybe Indira Varma's expectation that this would be her last season, could stay in a "Casting" subsection. In addition, I don't see a clear necessity to directly quote such long passages from the actress; I would probably summarize and paraphrase them instead. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not meant to be a subsection of "Production". I renamed it as part of this edit, since the section was not about "production" and the subsection was not about "casting", at least as written. I was partially reverted by someone here, without explanation except that other articles do it that way. But if the other articles do not actually have discussion of "Production" and "Casting", then those other articles should be changed as well. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you check other articles? I reverted it so it'd be like the other articles about episodes Josswhedon (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See my response to the IP (you?) below. I don't care what other articles do; they are other articles on other topics, and as written now the section titles make no sense in this article. I highly doubt you have read all of the other sixty-two GOT episode articles carefully and determined that in each and every case the "Production" heading makes sense and the "Writing" and "Casting" subheadings make sense as "phases" in the production process. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly with on this.  Comments like "Always has been that way" and "On every GoT episode article" from users such as  and 91.203.36.130 imply that conformity to precedent is a greater value than improvement of content.  When the precedent is bad (such as, specifically relevant to GoT episode articles, when there is a disconnect between section names and section content), that's a great reason to ignore the flawed precedent and instead improve the article.  If you have arguments as to why the precedent is good, please make them.--DavidK93 (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Who said that the precedent was bad? For me it's better to keep things the way they are, not ignore them 5.141.238.158 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did. In this article at least, the content covered in "Writing" and "Casting" have nothing to do with the writing and casting stages of "Production". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Who cares about "every other GoT article"?
So what? Most of those articles, as far as I have read, are garbage, and our present article, here, makes no sense following your edit. Please explain to me what you mean by "Production", "Writing" and "Casting", because right now these words don't seem to make any sense in the contexts in which they are used. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I see the merit in changing the "Casting" section title to "Cast," because it doesn't at all discuss the process of casting performers. But I do think it's better to have "Writing," "Cast," and "Filming" under a "Production" supersection.  There is a thematic connection among those aspects of the episode, which is well encapsulated by the "production" descriptor.  And from a navigation standpoint, it's easier to parse the table of contents if it's divided broadly into Plot - Production - Reception.  --DavidK93 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thing is, we don't have a lot of information on the "production" of this episode specifically, and "casting" sounds silly when all of the actors discussed in the section were cast years before this episode entered production. Really, almost all the stuff in "Writing", "Cast"/"Casting" and "Filming" is the same as the stuff in "Critical reception", just from people involved in the show rather than third-party critics. It's not discussion of the production process, just the cast and crew providing analysis of and reactions to various aspects of the episode. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember to read wp:ose if you have not yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I considered that. But given what usually goes on on these pop culture article talk pages, I could totally see someone saying "That's about deletion discussions, and has nothing to do with this". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Separating it as you did simply made the article more clunky and disjointed, so I restored the longstanding format as the format you are pushing makes no sense. Also, casting doesn't always just involve adding a new actor, the casting of a show also includes when the actor leaves. I didn't write any of the production section, but disagree with your assessment that it should be listed as Cast rather than Casting. The distinction between these two titles are not enough to edit war over so I suggest abandoning this cause and moving on. Instead of changing article formats, removing content, etc. I'd suggest adding content and improving the article in order to make it conform to the Writing, Casting and Filming format. Removing content and disjointing things isn't an improvement. Calibrador (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article already was "clunky and disjointed". You can't label a collection of quotations from cast members about the characters and their roles in the part of the story that happened to fall in this episode as "Production → Casting" of this episode when the actors in question were all cast years before this episode entered pre-production. I don't think there is sourceable content that would make [this and other individual episode articles] conform to the Writing, Casting and Filming format, and the WP:BURDEN is not on me to go out and find obscure sources that probably don't exist in order to justify your edit. You should be the one doing that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや )
 * I and other users, as you can see don't agree with your edit. So stop with your distruptive editing Hijiri88 or you will be reported. - AffeL (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this. You clearly either have not read or have not understood the above "discussion". Other users (mostly socks or new accounts with a poor understanding of policy) saying "I don't like it" does not overrule rational discussion. Neither you nor anyone else has explained why you think your version is better. And if you make any more baseless threats about how I "will be reported for my disruptive editing" ... screw it. Please focus on content. Your above comment contains nothing about article content, despite being posted on an article talk page. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What the hell? As you can see directly above, it has been discussed. DavidK93 and I agree. One sock-IP, one new account who should be UN-blocked and is refusing to change their username, and one other editor expressed disagreement, but none explained why they disagree. If you want to discuss, then you should. (Well, actually you should be blocked for your repeated edit-warring after multiple final warnings, but that's beside the point.) Seriously, what don't you like about the edit. You need to make an argument. WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD don't apply here because the article was three days old when I first made the edit. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On this occasion I'm going to agree with AffeL. I don't think Hijiri88 quite understands what "Production" means, and I suggest purchasing a dictionary to help. At the moment, production accurately conveys what is covered in that section, and thus it should remain as it is. Hijiri88 also misrepresents what DavidK93 has said, because he does not think that the Procuction section should be removed at all; rather he thinks the "casting" subsection should be renamed "Cast". At the moment, Hijiri88 is the only one who doesn't want the Production label to remain, so he's going to have to offer a more convincing argument for it to go, because at the moment he just appears to like being a contrarian and enjoys edit warring. Somethingwickedly (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It also seems like SW and I have radically different interpretations of this comment by, assuming SW even read it. I find it hard to get [I do] not think that the Procuction section should be removed at all; rather [I think] the "casting" subsection should be renamed "Cast" from I agree strongly with Hijiri88 on this. Bear in mind that the user DavidK93 and I were disagreeing with had not changed the section title back to "Casting"; he had specifically re-added the "Production" heading without reverting my change to "Cast". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice NPA-violation. You should retract that immediately. I know what "Production" means, and if you are trying to say that in this article it means something else (different from what it means in all our other film and TV articles), then you should define it, not demand that I go out and buy a dictionary. (BTW, I majored in translation studies, and own plenty of dictionaries.) The fact is that "Production" in this context clearly means what MOS:FILM and WP:TVPRODUCTION say, not what you think "a dictionary" will tell me it means. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I find it absolutely incredible that you STILL have not actually explained why you think your version is better or cited any policy or guideline in favour of your version.
 * Anyway, how about this: Rename "Filming" to "Production", add a sentence to the top of the section about who wrote the script, remove the "Writing" section, and rename "Casting" to "Cast", perhaps including a cast list on top of the random grab-bag of quotations about the story from cast-members. FWIW, the cast list in the infobox is currently in violation of WP:LEDE, as it contains non-basic information not discussed anywhere else in the article.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with how the article looks, your version does not make any sense, plus you have no valid argument on why you want to change it. - AffeL (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, it seems you have not even read any of my comments before responding. I have explained multiple times what my issue with the current format is and why it is not supported by policies and guidelines. I made a compromise proposal above and you completely ignored it. It is impossible to discuss things with you when you don't listen, which makes it all the less helpful when you demand hat I "get consensus" for my edits -- how am I supposed to get consensus on the talk page when I am the only one willing to read other people's comments on the talk page? Stop this IDHT, or I will report you on ANI. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I just get the impression that Hijiri88 wants to change things for the sake of changing them. If it was the other way around, Hijiri88 would still want it changed. I'm sure whatever the result of this discussion we'll be on another talk page in a week's time discussing another pointless change. It is pretty tiring watching him edit-warring when he doesn't get his way (which I've tried to stay out of myself). If he gets consensus for his changes then I will accept them, but he needs to get that first, because if he reverts the changes again I will be reporting both sides (Hijiri88 and AffeL) for edit-warring. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please comment on my compromise proposal. Lacking consensus, all versions are considered equal. So far, neither you nor any of the other editors reverting to the earlier version have explained why you think that version is better. It is enough to tell me to buy a dictionary. The simple fact is we don't have sufficient information about the writing stage in this single episode's production to build a section out of it, the "casting" section consists of a number of quotes from actors who were cast years before this episode entered pre-production commenting on the final product, and so "filming" might as well be renamed to "production" for all that. Threatening to report me for "edit-warring" when I opened this talk page discussion preemptively and no one has provided a rationale for reverting me apart from IDONTLIKEIT and OSE is not helpful: if this came to either ANEW or ANI, I can promise you I would come out of the resulting mess in a stronger position than you, AffeL and "Josswhedon", whoare refusing to engage in civil, PAG-based discussion of the content. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So, is anyone going to respond? Seriously, if you revert someone who already carefully brought something to the talk page, and demand "consensus" for their edits, but then refuse to actually engage in discussion to form such a consensus, that is blockable behaviour, and most certainly runs afoul of the edit-warring policy, regardless of how many reverts are actually made in any single 24-hour period. I presented a reasonable compromise proposal here, and even though both User:Somethingwickedly and User:AffeL have since posted comments below the proposal, neither have apparently noticed it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What more is their to say?.. we have responded and all of us have said no to your proposal. - AffeL (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * AffeL, I swear, you are really pushing me with this IDHT act. You have not given a reason why you think my edit was worth reverting, and you have not even acknowledged my compromise proposal. I am very, very tempted to ask Yunshui to take another look at your recent behaviour. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have given all the reasons and so have other users, but you refuse to listen. - AffeL (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's it -- I've had enough. Would you mind having a look at the above "discussion" and dealing with AffeL's behaviour as you see fit? (Note that I recognize you might see fit just to say "You could take it to ANI if you want...?") Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you could take it to ANI if you want... I'll say straight up that I haven't looked at the article (partly from selfish reasons; I haven't seen series 7 yet...), so I have no opinion on whose version is "right". However, what I do have is the checkuser bit and a suspicious nature... so I'm blocking AffeL with regards to the surprising similarities between his account and that of User:PeterD12, a sock which hadn't edited recently enough to be picked up in the last SPI, but which edited this very article less than two weeks ago. Explanations and unblock appeals can be made in the usual way. Yunshui 雲 水 12:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh. That's interesting. Sorry for pinging you on a talk page that might contain spoilers. That's all that needs to be said on the matter, I guess. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that nobody ever responded to the merits of your suggested article layout. (AffeL's claim that "we have responded and all of us have said no" was the first comment anybody made on it, and didn't address the merits.)  It sounds mostly like a good idea.  I agree that the current Production section is a bit of an indiscriminant collection of interesting things said by the cast.  I definitely agree that there is almost no information about the writing.  (The Writing section, apart from identifying the writers, should include things like what sections of book it was based on.  And since that information no longer exists, a Writing section has little purpose.)  I would propose a slightly different version of your suggestion.  I would keep the "Production" section title but eliminate all subsection titles, and move information that is just the cast talking about interesting things out to a new "Analysis" section.  MOS:TV indicates that an "Analysis" section is optional, but it seems optimal here because that information would feel out of place in the "Production" or "Reception" sections (which MOS:TV suggests as options).  This would result in the "Production" section having a sentence about writing, two sentences about casting, and a few short paragraphs about things that happened on set legitimately as part of production.  The storyline insights into Bran and Ellaria would go into the new "Analysis" section.  --DavidK93 (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88's proposal was appalling which was probably why nobody really commented on it directly. However, I actually think that DavidK93 is on to something, and that his proposal is extremely good, and would organise the information in a more meaningful and useful way that actually makes sense. I would be very much in favour of this suggestion. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blanking a long quote taken from a primary source, and possibly some other stuff taken exclusively from primary sources, and renaming the section (which would be radically simplified after the above change, and would not be long enough for three subsections) to "Production", is "appalling"? Why didn't you say that until now? Until DK showed up and made a more nuanced comment? Until the only user who was agreeing with you was blocked? And you are a new user -- you should not be lecturing me about policy regarding quote-farms and overreliance on primary sources, even if we can disagree in good faith about article layout. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. I didn't actually notice this, but User:DavidK93's proposal is just a more sophisticated version of my own (the reason mine was unsophisticated was because I didn't want to waste time on it until I was sure others were open to it, although I made a very similar proposal to David's here -- I'm not sure if David or anyone else ever noticed it, so it's probably a "great minds" situation).
 * User:Somethingwickedly's referring to my proposal as "appalling" but to David's elaboration of the same proposal as "extremely good" is atrocious, and proof that Somethingwickedly is more interested in picking fights than in improving the article, or at the very least was not reading my comments before responding to them. Somethingwickedly, you should retract your multiple personal attacks against me and insinuations that I was not acting in good faith. If you are not interested in engaging in civil discussion, then I am not interested in engaging in any discussion with you.
 * All that said, if we are all in agreement that David's combination of my two earlier proposals is the best way forward, then there's no point fighting. I would like credit where it's due, but that's a secondary concern and not worth fighting over.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to your ludicrous and untrue claims, although I do find it amusing that you think I'm the one interested in picking fights. I'm also not here to give credit to anyone whether that is you, DavidK93, or User10000; I am here to try to improve the encyclopaedia. I am not here to give a pat on the back to anyone nor do I expect one in return. I can see that you did make a similar suggestion on the Dragonstone talk page, and I did comment on other sections after you made that comment, but I honestly don't remember seeing it; if you had suggested it again here I would have supported it - you chose not to. If you want to give yourself a pat on the back for having the same idea feel free. Somethingwickedly (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Within the context of editing and improving Wikipedia, credit is not important. But most people are more engaged in any effort if their contributions are acknowledged respectfully.  's suggestion here was the basis for mine.  And although I did not consciously recall it, I had also read their (I actually don't know Hijiri88's pronouns) similar suggestion about the earlier episode.  I think it's a good approach for GoT, because of how much information the actors and other personnel put out through the media.  --DavidK93 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't credit required for attribution in the licencing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of attribution, I suppose so. But I meant in terms of who contributed ideas to a Talk page discussion, regardless of which editor edits site content in a specified manner.  --DavidK93 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again I must reiterate that "I want credit for my ideas!" was not my main point. My main point was that SW should retract his attacks against me ("appalling", "ignorant enough that I should go out and buy a dictionary", threats of on-wiki retaliation, deliberately refusing to acknowledge my proposal but praising the same proposal when it came from someone else...). But yeah, if, for example, SW implemented the proposal by removing the OVERQUOTE, moving the relevant quotes that have nothing to do with production into a separate section, and removing the subheadings from the (by then small) production section, and in the edit summary said either "This is my idea", "This is DavidK's idea, not Hijiri's", or "This is not Hijiri's idea" in the edit summary, or you did the same with either the first or third of those summaries, that would possibly be an attribution problem. Alluding to the talk page would probably be enough in cases like this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 19:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't really want to have to respond anymore to this, because I had thought the issue at hand had been resolved, but the nature of Hijiri 88's reply has meant that it would be remiss of me not to. Before I address that issue though, I would first like to state that I would prefer to not actually implement these ideas myself as I feel it would be a waste of my time, and it would be best if someone who really wants the change to do it (although again I am happy with the proposed changes). Now, unfortunately, I will quickly go over Hijiri88's allegations. I never used the word "ignorant" to describe you. I merely felt you misunderstood the definition of certain words, and offered what I hoped would be a helpful suggestion to you. I apologise if you were offended by me offering this suggestion, and will do my best to not offer helpful suggestions to you in future. I called your suggestion "appalling" because in my mind it was/is, and although DavidK93's was similar, it is subtly different (and better). You did at least come up with a proposal which deserves some credit, unlike me, so even though it wasn't the greatest proposal I've seen I should congratulate you on your effort. I've already stated that I was unaware that you had made a similar suggestion on another talk page, but I cannot be expected to revisit every talk page/remember everything. I think it's great that you had a similar proposal. I've left your other point until last because I feel it is one of the most insulting things I have read on this site, and I can only hope it is simply a misunderstanding. I never threatened any sort of retaliation towards you or any other user. You decided to edit war with AffeL (now a blocked user) rather than waiting for a consensus to be formed. I was simply trying to remind you both to be very careful. It should be noted that I didn't just warn you; I warned AffeL who was on the same "side" as me in the discussion at that point. It is disappointing that you don't like helpful advice, but I have definitely learnt my lesson. I will not retract any of the points I've made, because any retraction would not be genuine. I will, however, apologise for you misinterpreting me. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. We're done here.
 * I would like to implement the proposal as I don't think it's a waste of time, but I'm getting on a plane to Portugal in half an hour and probably won't be on Wikipedia much for the next eleven days. If anyone else wants to do the honours in the meantime, you have my blessing.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I implemented the proposal. It's beneath any of our respective dignities to pretend that an exhortation to buy a dictionary is intended as a "helpful suggestion."  --DavidK93 (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

controversy edit by Hijiri88
Explain yourself? - AffeL (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm... what? Are you talking about my adding maintenance tags? Your reverts are the controversial edits there; blanking maintenance tags without addressing the issues is almost universally recognized as disruptive behaviour, and I've seen people receive blocks and de facto site-bans for it. You should explain your actions if you think they are justified. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

AffeL's removal of maintenance tags
This is way out of line. The article at present contrains three sections on plot, production and reception. The plot section doesn't include citations, but is implicitly sourced to the episode itself. Every single source cited in the production section is an interview with a member of the cast or crew. Only "Reception" is primarily based on secondary sources for the episode itself, although even there most of the citations are to randomly cherry-picked individual reviews. And by my count, 555/1208 words of the "Production" and "Reception" sections (including section titles and image captions, which are not running prose) are in quotation marks. That's 46% of those two sections, and the article body consists of only those two sections and a PRIMARY-sourced plot summary.

It is not a requirement to fix the article's problems myself before tagging it, and given that the same editor who removed the tags has been revenge-reverting most of my edits without explanation for two months now, it's completely unreasonable to expect me to make anything more than piece-meal edits to the article itself. Removing maintenance tags without addressing the issues, and demanding that talk page discussion establish "consensus" to include the maintenance tags, is utterly ridiculous -- if AffeL were willing to discuss the issues on the talk page, the article wouldn't need to be tagged in the first place, and I have never seen anyone demand "talk page consensus to include tags" without quickly getting swatted down.

Pinging User:Curly Turkey, whose advice I had already sought regarding both the PRIMARY and QUOTEFARM questions. (Read: I actually already had the consent of another user for the tags, even though such consent of course was not necessary.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, before my edit this afternoon (which I'm kinda surprised wasn't revenge-reverted without explanation), the ratio was not 555/1208, but 597/1229, or 49%. If we left out the image captions and section titles, that would become 597/1198, or pretty damn close to 50%. If we focused only on the exceptionally quote-heavy "Writing" and "Critical reception" sections, that becomes 542/810 -- 67% of those two substantial sections was nothing but quotations. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to source the plot section, everybody knowns that. Only the writing section of the production has quotations, the rest pretty much do not. It's normal to have quotations for Critical reception, also none of the quotation their are long. Entertainment Weekly source is not a primary source btw. - AffeL (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to source the plot section, everybody knowns that. What on earth are you talking about!? I explicitly said, multiple times, that I was not including the plot summary in my calculations. Only the writing section of the production has quotations This simply is not true.See the green portions here. Entertainment Weekly source is not a primary source btw. Entertainment Weekly is not the source; the sources are Entertainment Weekly's interviews with various actors in the production of the show. These are primary sources as outlined in WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you're falling for this horseshit. It's the same trick he pulled when I removed the section that was sourced to the HBO special—he claimed I was removing stuff sourced to IGN.  He's fucking with all our heads. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel needs to address their use of "their" as a first priority. Fun fact for those that missed it, he's been blocked for sockpuppeting but is currently appealing it.  —   IVORK  Discuss 22:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Funner fact—he has a long history of socking and was blocked for a year for being disruptive. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)