Talk:The Winds of Winter/Archive 1

Recent page blanking
The page has recently been blanked on the demonstrably false premise that the article contains only speculation. Actually, that was only the second attempt at a rationale. The first attempt was a silly claim that because at some point Martin said there were only four chapters completed, there shouldn't be an article. Here are the facts: This article makes factual claims about the book that are directly drawn from what Martin has said. The thing that is the closest to speculation in the whole article is the following sentence: "If the previous statements are true, the character list for The Winds of Winter will contain any or all of the surviving characters that were in the previous two books." That is a narrow conclusion necessarily implied by the statements referred to. To call it speculation requires a bizarre understanding of the word.

That the claims involved need refs is irrelevant. The answer to unsourced statements is not deletion of the article. Even if it were, page blanking, especially after a previous attempt to short circuit actual procedures was reverted, would not be the right way to do it.

In any event, even without the last two paragraphs of the "Characters" section, there is still enough in the article to warrant its retention as a stub. The subject is clearly notable and there is information verified by reliable sources included in the article. -Rrius (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unpublished books are a bit tricky, see NBOOKS, and need to pass strict standards. In this case, while I'm certain that we will have a stand-alone article on it at some point (even if it were to be canceled), I'm not sure it passes the guideline. However, I tend to be pragmatic these days and don't mind having a stand-alone page for a topic if I think it's inevitable that it warrants a page down the line: Otherwise, we'll just be edit warring with new editors for the next years. What verifiable information do we have though? We have the title, author, and language. The publisher is already speculation, strictly speaking, at best it's the planned publisher. I have only glanced at the plot (and think I was already spoiled with something), but I'd certainly remove it entirely: Martin hasn't begun writing it yet (except from some spillover chapters), who knows what's going to happen, and what Martin is going to decide over over the next 5 years and 47 more rewrites (hopefully not, but ...)? Dito the character section, it calls some things confirmed, that certainly needs to be replaced with "planned": Zilch is confirmed at this point. There's only plans. Amalthea  12:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to the plot section, is this anything more than an extrapolation of Littlefingers plans in AFFC? So he says in AFFC I am gonna do X and Y, but that is not in any way a garantee that X and Y will happen. In fact, it is very unlikely as GRRM is known for suprising twists (Sansa might run away, the vale might rise in rebellion, Littlefinger might die, etc.). I will leave it in for the moment, but that is definitely speculation. I removed speculation attributed to martin about viewpoints and chapters asspeculation by a reliable source is still speculation. That Cersei chapters might be pushed back needs a source and probably didn't happen (in which case it should be removed) as I don't remember any recent updates from GRRM about this. Leave all that out and you end up with the lead and one sentence about the four chapters. That could be included in the main ASOIAF article and does not need a separate article. Yoenit (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read what is actually written. What the text says is that "AFFC says X". That is neither speculation nor a spoiler. If it said Littlefinger's plan will come to fruition or that we are somehow sure he isn't lying, that would be speculation, but it does nothing of the sort. For the love of Christ, read what you are complaining about before complaining. -Rrius (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a reply ready, but then I noticed you blindly reverted me with even looking what I changed, duplicating the line about Cersei being pushed back. Amalthea above also objected to the wording in this section, so it was not just me who thought the source was being misquoted here. With regards to the speculation dispute, I am not gonna waste my time convincing you if you react this hostile to my earlier comment, but maybe somebody else has more patience. Yoenit (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of what you "changed" amounted to removing the bulk of the section. If you think my reaction to your inability to understand what "speculation" means is hostile, it is only because it is infuriating to have someone declare something speculation when it is an "X says Y" factual statement. Quoting someone is by definition not speculation. If you think Martin is "speculating" (still a wholly inappropriate word given the actual definition of the word), it doesn't matter; the author's "speculation" about what he will include in the book is simply not the same as Wikipedia speculating. What's more, the author's "speculation" about what he intends to write is an important part of the story of what this forthcoming book is, and therefore should be included. -Rrius (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, we have no external source (even Martin's blog) suggesting actual plot material from this novel. The Sansa section of this article is the very definition of original research, and I see no reason why it should be left in.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge/redirection proposal
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire. – sgeureka t•c 10:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

correct phrasing
The article says 'Mago, who was killed in the first season of Game of Thrones'. With the article being about the forthcoming BOOK, not the TV series, shouldn't we be talking about the 'first book' rather than the 'first season'? --92.226.56.184 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mago wasn't killed in the first book (A Game of Thrones), he was killed in the first season of Game of Thrones (note the lack of "A"). And that's what the sentence says. If you have another way of stating that information with less confusion, please go ahead and change it. – sgeureka t•c 16:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Release Date Listing
Maybe its just me, but I don't believe any release date should be listed (even a year) until the publisher announces a date. The only time I've seen him mention 2014 in interviews has not been with any certainty, and sadly the author himself isn't a reliable source on this anyway. I think mentioning exact quotes where he talks about the release in the article may be okay but updating the infobox with a release date/year is premature. Caidh (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree almost entirely. My one quibble is that I think it is (as opposed to "may be") okay to put sourced quotes in the text. -Rrius (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its fine to qualify it with a phrase "Martin hopes to publish it..." or "is tentatively planned for release..." as long as that really is sourced. I would be against putting anything in the infobox however. Someday, when Amazon has it for pre-order, then we can list a date.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that except the Amazon date. Amazon (and other retailer) dates have been known to be wildly inaccurate.  If one of his publishers sets a date, that would be more reliable. Caidh (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No release date for the book has been given; the Adrias News article is well-known to have been mistranslated and errors produced. Martin did say a long time ago that 2014 was a possibility, but that was the vaguest of vague guesses. More recently his publishers have been saying maybe 2015, and his foreign agents 2016, but again this is guesswork. No official release date has been given.--Werthead (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewording a quote
Hell in a Bucket removed the square brackets from the word '2011'. Martin's original quote is "Three years from now when I'm...". Obviously we either need to alter the quote from that or precede it with "in 2011". Per MOS:QUOTE, "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose it within square brackets". Changing "now" to "2011" and passing it off as Martin's own words is misleading. HIAB reverted me twice; square brackets are clearly against his personal preference. Adabow (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks bad. One possible solution can be ON blah blah blah date Martin said... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The better solution was to change it, which I've done. But saying it looks bad is not an adequate justification for not showing a change to a quotation. That you aren't familiar with this practice and don't like the way it looks is frankly of no importance. It is necessary and something you really ought to get used to. -Rrius (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the justification I would use is WP:IAR which is a weasel excuse, but if there is a rule that prevents you from making the encyclopedia better ignore it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing brackets from quotations makes the encyclopedia worse, not better. And IAR is about common sense when following a guideline would produce a poor result in a particular case. There was nothing particular here. The use was exactly in line with the guideline, so your thoughts about "improvement" are nothing more than personal disagreement with consensus. You are entitled to your disagreement, inexplicable though it may be, but you aren't entitled to impose it on the project. You've been here long enough you should know that already. -Rrius (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Removed" chapters in section on viewpoint characters
In the section on viewpoint characters, several of them say that chapters were removed from "A Dance with Dragons"…does this mean that these chapters were removed from the previous book and moved to the next one, and if so, was this prior to publication (as I am assuming)? It's not very clear. 65.107.186.18 (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. Before the publication of ADwD, GRRM felt that the chapters would mesh better in the next book, so he took them out and held them over.  --Padenton (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we reword this as it doesn't read well. Perhaps we could state that the chapters we originally in ADWD at the beginning of the section or something. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Release Date?
Recently George R.R. Martin's website showed a notice that "Winter Coming This Spring"...which most readers assumed was a notification that The Winds of Winter will be released in the spring. That notification is no longer there, and has been replaced with a notice: GOT    03.31.13   along with a  DAY/HOUR/MINUTE/SECOND countdown clock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.187.52 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is just about the season premier of season 3 of the HBO show. Winds of Winter won't be out this year (and most likely not next year either).Caidh (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Shall I delete this section of the talk page? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be left. For archival. Whenever the page gets long enough to start archiving, it'll be moved to an archive subpage eventually. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Winds of Winter
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Winds of Winter's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dragon Release": From A Dance with Dragons:  From A Feast for Crows:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 14:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Legitimacy of the cover
I can't exactly find anything to suggest that the cover in the infobox is the actual cover. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The image info on Wikipedia just have a link to Goodreads, and Westeros.org - neither of which give any source that I can find. It appears to just be a fan created image.  I've removed it but if someone can find some real source that can show its official it can always be re-added. Caidh (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * People keep re-adding the cover. There has to be some real source indicating that the publisher has shown this as the cover.  It seems like a fan made it (on westeros.org) and it has spread from there. Caidh (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This was the first place I saw the image Forbes seemed like a pretty legitimate source to me. Eric Ando (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with Forbes for being enough to put it in the article so I've put it back. I'm still 99% sure it will be shown to be fake though - trying to find the source of it.  The image has been floating around the internet since at least May 2012 and all discussion about it acknowledges it as a fan made cover (though they don't mention an original source).  If I find something more definitive (i.e. some artist saying they did it as a fan cover or something from Bantam Spectra denying its authenticity, then I'll remove again. Caidh (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Found this from post from Reddit from almost a year ago. Its from the person who says they created the cover.  They even say farther into the comments "I better stop here before it spreads like wildfire and people think it's the real one." which of course it has done.  http://en.reddit.com/r/gameofthrones/comments/q1ukk/my_attempt_at_making_the_winds_of_winter_book/ Caidh (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's pretty definitive and too bad. I actually really like that cover and thought it a good sign that release of the book was sooner than we feared. Eric Ando (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In 2016, Martin was asked: "George is the black cover with the horn the real cover or not?" And responded: "Yes, for the moment. Though these things have been known to change." So I think it's not definitive. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Horn Cover
GRRM said on his NotABlog (http://grrm.livejournal.com/465247.html?thread=23728223#t23728223), that the horn cover is the actual cover. So, can we add it now? Behun (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see where in that post he said that it is the real cover. Yes, he used the image but I can't find anywhere in the post you mentioned where he says it is the actual cover.  That being said, I may have missed it since it is a LONG post (and it's late) so if that is the case, my apologies.  I cannot honestly believe they would use a fan created cover for the book though.  If I did miss it, can you point out the actual quote? Caidh (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's in a comment rather than in the actual post; just scroll all the way to the bottom of the link Behun posted. A commenter asks if it's the real cover and he replies, "Yes, for the moment. Though these things have been known to change." It does strike me as odd, but maybe there's more to the story than we know. Brendan Moody (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The link shows Martin's response to a comment. Or you might use this one: "George is the black cover with the horn the real cover or not?" And he responded: "Yes, for the moment. Though these things have been known to change." The pic of the cover has been since deleted from wiki, though. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering he emphasized that it is the cover in this moment and it might change, I'm hesitant to add it. It's better to wait for the release than have to change the image. The book doesn't even have a release date, so why the hurry to add a cover? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Does routinely UNDO everything that everyone adds?
re: Revision as of 22:53, 21 December 2016 (edit) (undo) (thank)

WikiHannibal: Do you routinely delete everything you did not write? Have you ever considered discussing it and getting consensus? Peter K Burian (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with WikiHannibal's removal of your addition. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well then you have a consensus of two... Peter K Burian (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on The Winds of Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160511183045/http://grrm.livejournal.com/487298.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/487298.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312075543/http://grrm.livejournal.com/419601.html?thread=21030417 to http://grrm.livejournal.com/419601.html?thread=21030417
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/the-winds-of-winter-release-date-george-rr-martins-next-book-might-finally-be-coming-10494416.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102170255/http://grrm.livejournal.com/465247.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/465247.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66ff8UE0I?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F159060.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/159060.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66fwZ8yLl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F169899.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/169899.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227101506/http://grrm.livejournal.com/344674.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/344674.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://georgerrmartin.com/if-sample.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/672edrqr3?url=http%3A%2F%2Fharpervoyagerbooks.com%2F2012%2F04%2F10%2Feastercon-eat-drink-and-talk-sff%2F to http://harpervoyagerbooks.com/2012/04/10/eastercon-eat-drink-and-talk-sff/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/512-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-one.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Forthcoming or upcoming or ...
Re: The lead sentence. TenTonParasol is correct in her edit summary that this has been discussed, but I can't recall where. In any case, "forthcoming" or "upcoming" seem to be the most commonly used terms for books, films, and TV series at Wikipedia. They do somewhat connote that the expected event is in the near future, but "long-awaited" or "long anticipated" are POV statements that suggest reader expectations. We obviously also have to avoid saying that the book is "overdue", "never coming", "allegedly coming", or nonsense like that, but further, we should also be very careful not to use wording that inappropriately suggests delay or lateness.— TAnthonyTalk 21:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would "planned" work instead of those? This would avoid using adjectives implying reader expectations, or those implying delay or lateness. Caidh (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen "planned" used elsewhere and I personally think it would work fine here. — TAnthonyTalk 17:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense to me. It just struck me as coming really soon when I'd read "forthcoming", so I checked the news and didn't see anything. I like the planned statement. Sorry to make it a big deal!! --Chrislarson (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, like I said, this has come up before, and is especially understandable in this particular case. How often do we have a full article years before a book is published??— TAnthonyTalk 14:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made the change in the article lede, since there didn't seem to be any objection. Caidh (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Winds of Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/169899.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044229/http://www.georgerrmartin.com/links.html to http://georgerrmartin.com/links.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://harpervoyagerbooks.com/2012/04/10/eastercon-eat-drink-and-talk-sff/
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66fwa9nw4?url=http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/512-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-one.html to http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/512-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-one.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have no problem with this page existing once the book actually exists, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As this book is not even being written yet, it should not have a page until then.. Right now all that is here, namely that this is the projected title of the sixth book, can be merged into the page on the series. Indrian 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Balso Snell 17:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. There is not a clear release date; until then possibly just merge this with the series' main article. At the moment, there is fair speculation that the novel will not be published at all. Vision Insider (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2018

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move either of the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

– There is no correct disambiguation between the two articles. For the latter article, its disambiguation is "Game of Thrones", but many readers may not be aware of the difference between "Game of Thrones" for the television series ,and "A Game of Thrones" or "A Song of Ice and Fire" for the book series, and hence the "episode" disambiguation is required.
 * The Winds of Winter → The Winds of Winter (novel)
 * The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones) → The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones episode)

For the former article, no disambiguation is given, and I don't believe that it can be considered the primary topic given the popularity of the television series. The two need to be correctly titled, and then the non-disambiguated title turned into a disambiguation article for the two. --  Alex TW 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh well. When a dab page is made put in DABmentions for List of Harlequin Romance novels released in 1981 and Winds of Winter (horse) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The Winds of Winter (novel) and Oppose The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones episode). Since In ictu oculi pointed out the Harlequin Romance novel and the horse named Winds of Winter (as distinguished from The Winds of Winter), creation of a dab page would seem to be appropriate. As for the TV installment, there is no need to use the term "episode" within the qualifier, when three or four words of explanation indicated within the TV episode's dab page entry, would suffice. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both for now. The highly-anticipated novel seems to be the primary topic over this single episode. The mutual hatnotes cover any potential reader confusion. Not enough here for a dab page (Winds of Winter (horse) is a redirect, the romance novel is part of a list, neither very remarkable), but if needed, a better place for the dab page would be to repurpose Winds of Winter. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If anything, I would argue that this single novel that doesn't have a release date would give the primary topic status to the episode that broke records. However, given the number of "Winds of Winter" titles, I suggest that there is no primary topic, but do agree that Winds of Winter should be the disambiguation page. --  Alex TW 17:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it has a release date or not doesn't matter when it comes to debating a primary topic. What matters is the coverage its gotten and the usage - ie, more sources discuss the upcoming novel than discuss the single episode. And that number will only ever go up, especially when the release actually happens. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose move of novel, Support The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones episode). The horse and Harlequin romance novel aren't notable and don't matter for disambiguation.  (If someone writes an article on them that isn't instantly AFD'd, we can perhaps discuss this again.)  The novel is extremely notable as it is a rare unpublished novel that has generated multiple notable media stories over a period of 7 years (!!), and its notability will likely only increase upon publication.  The episode, while certainly notable, doesn't compare.  That said, agree that "Game of Thrones" is confusing disambiguation, so "episode" helps make clear it means the TV episode.  SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not my first choice, but it can't hurt, and is in line with how WP:NCTV suggests to handle, if we consider the books and the show as one franchise. As long as the novel doesn't move. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose move of novel; I think it should perhaps be Merged with the series' entry for now. The Wiki policy seems pretty clear that you need a firm release date. There isn't one provided. Support the renaming of the episode's page. Vision Insider (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiki policy on that usually exists because in normal cases establishing standalone notability for a novel without a release date is nigh impossible. Merging this into the main A Song of Ice and Fire article is ludicrous given the sheer amount of coverage this novel receives and continues to receive, especially because it has yet to have a release date. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, here you responded to an eleven year old post, aka a post that was made before A Dance with Dragons was published. Please don't revive old threads, and understand that comments made eleven years ago have a very different context. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose both. The novel appears to me to be the primary topic. It is unpublished, but much talked-about, and the episode is essentially named after it. Netoholic makes other good points above, including making Winds of Winter a dab page. It's also standard to omit the "episode" qualifier in favor of the show name. I see your point about clarifying that the entry is a TV series episode to those who may not know the naming nuances of the novels vs. TV series, but logically I don't think anyone is going to see The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones) and think it is a novel chapter or something else to do with the books. Having The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones episode) as a redirect will make it pop up in the search bar for anyone really confused.— TAnthonyTalk 21:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Publication Date section
The Publication Date section is very long and most of it is obsolete. I removed the obsolete parts, but some guy added back a bunch of stuff speculating about whether or not the book will be published in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018. Given that it is now 2019 and the book still hasn't been published, I'm not convinced anyone really needs to read a full page of information to gauge the chances that the book will be published in 2014. - 68.207.248.247 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. --GodeNehler (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think any "stuff speculating about whether or not the book will be published" was removed as there was none in the article to start with. This is not a news article to provide only the most up-to-date info about the publication date; as an article in an encyclopedia, it shows history, context, progress. Nobody is reading the article to "gauge the chances that the book will be published in 2014". (BTW 2014 is hardly mentioned in the section but I giess it was a random example.) Perhaps the headline is confusing. In 2015, I tried to split one section on Background and publication into two (diff); as the "publication date" section grew, I think a better term is needed to describe its content. Publication history? WikiHannibal (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The progress bit may be OK, but it really seems like a ridiculous amount of words to say that the book was not published before 2021. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible publication date
I found a recent article by The Christian Post about The Winds of Winter published 28/8/2015 claiming that GRRM has confirmed that "Meanwhile, he did share that the book will be ready by spring of next year. It will be released before season 6 of "Game of Thrones" returns on HBO in 2016." at a convention in Spokane. Should this be added to the wikipedia page? Breckham101 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes i think we should definetly add that publication date. --Das Klügste (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ten Words Of Wisdom
Would it be a good idea to make a dedicated article? The carykh community is one of thousands, and TWOW is fairly popular.Antrotherkus (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Antrotherkus

Publication history?
I’m sorry, but there is no publication, and we don’t really know there will ever be. I think it’s ridiculous to have an enormous Publication history section covering years and years and years for a book that hasn’t even been published, unless it’s a work of great importance... Can’t we just wait and, when and if it’s published, say that it took a long time? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, not sure what you mean by "a work of great importance" but given the popularity of the topic, I think the amout of information is adequate. The section grows each a bit, so I removed some statements from the past to keep it in line. I think that if, ultimately, it were not published, the book would still have its article, and the section, which is now called Publication history, would be the more important. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant important, not popular. But I’m glad you trimmed it. Anyway, I think the subsection title is wrong. There cannot be a real history of unicorns because they haven’t existed. There cannot be a publication history of this because it hasn’t been published. Maybe “Writing history”? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, popularity is easily measurable, while importance not so much. So, again, what you mean by "a work of great importance"? As for the title, Writing history seems OK to me (I had the same idea but did not felt like changing it on my own bcs it was me who wrote the last two titles of the subsection, so it would be basically rewriting myself without any input from other editors). WikiHannibal (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant philosophical or historical or social importance. For example, The Communist Manifesto has an even longer, but well deserved, section on Publication history. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Just Speculation
The vast majority of this page is nothing more than speculation and I am baffled at how this page has avoided deletion so far. Viewpoint Characters are his plan, but we have already seen historically this is subject to change (in previous books he has deleted characters, added characters, split characters into different books etc). There is no guarantee that any of the characters listed will even appear in this book as he still has major plot issues (esp the Meereen Knot characters, he has written entire blogs on this). Even viewpoint chapters could easily be pushed back or re-written entirely. Writing History has some relevant info but it is mostly Martin's own posts, many of which have proven false. Not just the expected release dates or how hard he worked on writing it, but even things like publication history. This entire article is filled with rampant speculation and "in his own words" stuff and there is very little factual information. Kav2001c (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)kav2001c


 * Yes. What else would one expect from unpublished work? 193.166.253.150 (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Pass GNG though, innit? --Boynamedsue (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd expect no page. The book is only a dream, and doesn't exist. Maybe you have a stronger wp:crystalball than myself, but this article doesn't seem to hold facts about the book. These point of view chapters should be documented when they are verifiable. The author can and will change this book if it's ever released. It's sorta nonsensical to state what is in a non existing book Polly Rood (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The book is not a dream. He is working on it, though it takes some time. The article should not be deleted as long as Martin is alive and there's hope the book will be released. Yanivshn (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So much has been written about the book that it will never be deleted. Notability is not temporary. A great deal more will be written about the book if it is never published, and that will be added to the article. Something doesn't have to exist to have a wikipedia article, after all we have articles about the Trickle-down effect and the Christian god. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate sections
The point of view characters and chapters sections overlap, sharing the same content. I.E. Theon had a chapter released in 2011 is in both sections. The same is repeated for most characters. After a bold attempt to fix this, has readded it. I will leave the poor quality prose in at their request, but hope other editors work on deduplicating this wandering and repetitive article. 166.198.198.1 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No writing history for 2014?
There’s nothing on 2014. Where there no news whatsoever in that year? 82.35.81.189 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Might be in development hell?
The article for development hell says that the term is simply used to refers to something that takes more time that anticipated. For a book that has already taken more than twice the anticipated amount of time, its dev hell without a doubt. AwesomePhilosopher (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, "hell" is an underestimating term in this case. He makes the hell look cold, in what he does to his devoted readers (Literary hell, at least...). And yes, i agree, no need in "might". Yanivshn (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, the book is mostly notable for NOT being written. There is no reason why this shouldn't be part of the lead Bipsy the lab (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Development hell denotes a lack of production progress, and the term is not typically applied to books. We know that progress is being made, it is a book (so a medium that is not typically what the term is applied to), and the only source provided is an outdated tongue-in-cheek speculative piece from last year. There is no compelling reason to add this to the article. The lead already makes it very clear that the writing is still in progress, and the article makes it clear that the process has been very long. Applying the term does not actually add anything of value. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Development hell indicates exactly what is going on here. It can't go to production because it can't get out of development. It can't get out of development because it keeps getting restarted and changed. You object because you say it's irrelevant, but it's more relevant than all of the contradictory statements and quotes that make up this article today. Bipsy the lab (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with TenTonParasol. BTW "production" (do you produce books?) and "keeps getting restarted" (source?) indicate POV. WikiHannibal (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, books go into production. This is slightly off topic, but we have a page on the history of books you should check out. It's a good general interest article. But back to the topic, this book was prepared for production (covered in the history section with a source) and canceled. Since then, expectations have been set, and reset, as the book is rewritten (sourced, same section). It is clear the book is in development hell. Their is a source. The real question is whether it is wp:due for the lead, somewhere else, or nowhere. I would say that due to the longest section of the article being about its tumultuous history, it belongs in the lead. I'd accept using the source in the history section instead as well though. Bipsy the lab (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your summary of what (as I understand it) the writing history section says is, like, a rather broad interpretation of what it says. And what you're suggesting with there already being a source for adding that the book is in development hell runs afoul of WP:SYNTH or otherwise WP:OR in general, and WikiHannibal is right about the WP:POV issues about it. You need a specific source (honestly, multiple for the level of assertion you're trying to add into the article) directly saying the thing you're saying—and it needs to be better than the tongue-in-cheek speculative article from 2021. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We don't add that it's in development hell unless we have WP:RS that say so. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.theringer.com/game-of-thrones/2021/4/16/22386932/why-cant-george-rr-martin-finish-winds-of-winter is the rs that was removed multiple times that describes the book as being stuck in development hell. I'd use a word like limbo, but the source says development hell Bipsy the lab (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/books/1358498/Game-of-Thrones-George-RR-Martin-Winds-Winter-release-date-book-chapters-HBO-ending this is an interview where grrm discusses rewriting chapters and says "that's why they call it development hell". So, two sources including the author. Bipsy the lab (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Turns out the source for the previous quote is Grrms blog, which is accepted as a reliable source for the status of the book all over this page - https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2020/11/08/back-to-westeros/ Bipsy the lab (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ringer is the source I'm referring to multiple times above as outdated and tongue-in-cheek. It is not appropriate for this claim. Daily Express is considered generally unreliable. GRRRM's personal blog is acceptable in this context, but a) this is from 2020 and further updates say progress has been made, b) the blog in question also literally says that rewriting is "nothing new", and c) the mere fact that some portions of the book has been rewritten does not constitute a development hell as rewrites as considered a normal part of any writing process (don't I know it), and it takes MUCH more than "stuff was rewritten" to support the claim you are making about marking this project as in development hell. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  06:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel you are setting unrealistic goalposts here. We can't use sources that are two years old? That would mean getwrod of most of this article - unrealistic. Development hell doesn't mean no development, it means having to redo the work causing a a huge stall, in this case 12 years so far. We have rs, from horses mouth. It's not controversial. We use decade plus old entries from the same blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipsy the lab (talk • contribs) 06:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not just the age of the blog post, it is that it is not saying what you are trying to say. The blog post does not say that the project is in development hell. It says that portions have been rewritten and progress has been made. The blog post linked does not state a stalling in the project or its development. Again, you are doing original research (WP:OP), specifically synthesis (WP:SYNTH) that is at best dubious, and applying your own interpretation in violation of the neutral point of view policy (WP:POV). I am not setting unrealistic goalposts by telling you that you must provide multiple reliable (WP:RS), up-to-date sources that state what you are saying without any editorializing, interpretation, or synthesis on your part, and three other editors (two others in this thread) have concurred. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  06:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do you see synth in taking a Grrm quote about the book being in development hell and saying it is in development hell? Do you want attribution? "in 2020 grrm said the book was in development hell" Bipsy the lab (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be much better, yes. You have been trying to attribute the quote as saying the book is currently in 2022 in development hell, which is an entirely different statement. I still do not support adding this to the lead. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  06:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)