Talk:Game of Thrones season 5

RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com a suitable source for this content?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does WatchersOnTheWall.com count as an expert source per WP:SPS?

Despie being a "fan site" WatchersOnTheWall has a number of writers that are dedicated to finding out information about the show. The shows writers have a number of inside sources within the show who can provide reliable information. In fact, the large casting call for season 5 which listed the call sheets for characters such as Doran Martell was discovered by the writers of WatchersOnTheWall (although this was actually published on Winteriscoming.net, but it was nevertheless by the same writers). Bryan Cogman has both commented on articles on the site, and been interviewed.

Moreover, the site Winteriscoming.net has been often cited on other articles. The writers of Watchers originated on Winteriscoming.net, and they are all but name the same site (Winteriscoming.net is now effectively a new site after being bought out, and having new writers instated.)

Piandme (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Piandme 26 September 2014

@Piandme: This would probably be better discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard than in here. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 01:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (I see you've already notified them, though.) 01:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Establish credentials A similar RfC is under way at talk:Oathkeeper regarding Westeros.org, and a lot of the same policies and litmus tests would apply here: According to WP:SPS, self-published sources are acceptable if they are published by named members of the site's staff who have been established as experts in their particular fields.

Have any of the contributors to WotW 1) Authored news or magazine articles that have been published by mainstream venues? (Example: Elio Garcia of Westeros.org has written articles about GoT for MTV Geek) 2) Written books on the subject? 3) Do they have degrees in English or media fields? 4) Are they generally recognized as experts by professionals? (Example: Garcia and Antonsson have been invited to conventions and have appeared on podcasts as "guest experts") 5) Have George Martin, Benioff, Weiss or any of the books'/show's creators commented on either WotW itself or any of its contributors publicly? Do we have a quote somewhere of George Martin saying, "Wow, that WotW guy sure knows my books"? 6) Has any professional journalist referred to WotW as a reliable site or to any of its contributors as experts in print? Do we have an article in the New York Times or Entertainment Weekly or The Nerdist talking about what great researchers these WotW guys are?

Even so, WP:SPS advises that even expert self-published sources are usable "with caution." In my opinion, this means that they'd be reliable for facts (this writer worked on that episode; this event happened in this chapter) but perhaps less so for more subjective things, like the cultural impact of the series ("Game of Thrones is the new Lord of the Rings!"). Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

More or less what @Darkfrog24: said, @Piandme:. Even with all of the background with Westeros.org, it was a very near thing about using it as a source, and there is always going to be the subsequent conversation about whether the information found on the fansite could be found elsewhere. If the answer is 'no', then typically it is not noteworthy enough to include. Therefore, you will have spent all the time in the world to get a fansite recognized as a source for a very narrow range of information, and then learn that the information isn't even noteworthy enough to include.

Looking at the fansite WathersOnTheWall, I'd have to say that they are clearly true believers who have made, drank, and wrote a blog review about the kool-aid. I am not sure that makes them citable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a near thing, actually. But as for WotW, I've read two of the author bios and the second guy is listed as a "linguistics researcher." If this can be verified (real name, confirm profession), preferably by a third party, then that might allow us to use any article he's written on the languages of SoIaF. What, specifically, is the text that this source is meant to support and which WotW pages are meant to be supporting it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AxChucker[1] is described as "a world-renowned and internationally reviled television critic." If we can confirm that (independent source showing he's a real-world-famous TV critic), then his articles are okay per WP:SPS, but 1) this would not apply to the whole site and 2) someone has to do the legwork.

Same deal for Bex[2]: "Syracuse alum and veteran of newspaper, magazine and web." There is a link to her blog where someone can ask her whether this means she has been published and where those articles can be found.

Mark N. Kleinhenz looks like another possibility [3]: "Marc N. Kleinhenz has written for 26 sites, including The Huffington Post, The Escapist, and Tower of the Hand, where he’s features editor. He publishes ebooks on A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones, such as his own It Is Known: An Analysis of Thrones and Dr. Steven Attewell’s Race for the Iron Throne." If any of this isn't self-published, Kleinhenz might be usable. Hm, here's an article by him on Comic Related This guy's book, It Is Known was published by Blue Buddha Press. Hm... Blue Buddha Press seems to be specifically associated with Tower of the Hand. Is there anything independent for this guy?

I checked the rest of the bios. These three and the linguist were the only four people who had anything suggestive of expertise listed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Er, you might want to check that AxChucker thang again; I think it was meant tongue-in-cheek. Please turn on your humor and bs detector. The needle would be in the red with his bio. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's entirely possible, but actual professionals make fun of themselves too. That's why someone would have to check. This bio text is definitely not to be taken at face value on its own; we're agreed there.

While I'm here, Piandme, it might be best to mention that even if WotW is a proper source, that wouldn't make it either necessary or desirable to delete references to other sources, like IGN. I skimmed the page history and I'm guessing (not figure of speech, actually guessing) that's what precipitated this question. There's no rule saying that information can only have one reference tag. If both are acceptable, cite both. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. It is about "Oathkeeper" specifically but the outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent disruption

In view of recent disruption, I've temporarily semiprotected the page and blocked the series of throwaway accounts. This is likely linked to previous disruptive activities promoting links to the fansite watchersonthewall.com, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piandme/Archive. I've replaced all references to this site with references to more clearly reliable sources.  Sandstein  18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked socks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi  Sandstein . Sorry, I was actually one of the people that added a reference to that fansite as I looked under the criteria, and thought it was OK as it has editorial input. Now I know I will not be using it as a source again. As I'm new here I'm happy to accept your opinion on the matter, but it does look like these sources have actually been in place since September (not all by the same user either). Also, I notice that you cite http://www.themarysue.com/, which is a fantastic site. However, I just want to know why that site is allowed as it is also a fansite and has some of the same writers as watchersonthewall.com Genuinely interested, because to me there doesn't seem to be any difference (apart from your personal opinion). Thank you. UnderTheSeal (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC) UnderTheSeal, in view of your limited and recent contribution history, and the extensive history of sockpuppetry associated with this issue, I find it difficult to take your question at face value. Sorry.  Sandstein  20:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Really? I just had a look and you are an administrator so I would have thought you would he been a great person to ask. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using The Mary Sue; it is just that I want to know why one is considered a fansite and the other isn't to prevent me from making another silly mistake again. UnderTheSeal (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Hi UnderTheSeal I agree that this is absolutely unacceptable behaviour from an administrator. I think he/he is probably right to remove watchersonthewall.com, but having read through the SPI he definitelly seems to eb very narrow-minded (ecven when right), so I recommend staying away from him/her. A valuable editor, but no idea how to speak to others. Shame really. BrightLightCity (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Considering their contributions, the two accounts above are also blocked as socks of Piandme (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  21:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom Wlaschiha

So HBO has updated the episode listings on their programming lineup with episode names and cast (for the first 3 episodes). Tom Wlaschiha (who played Jaqen H'ghar in Season 2) coming back for Season 5 has been rumored all year. I believe the most popular theory is that he'll be taking the place of the Kindly Man [4], (in Braavos), in the show, but the only evidence I've found is these episode listings saying that he'll be in these at least the first 3 episodes, and nothing more no further details. --Padenton (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For all we know, he could be assassinating someone in Westeros. The show and the books are gonna diverge in a big way this year, so we shouldn't jump to conclusions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --Padenton (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeh, I think you have done the right thing. I would be amazed if he didn't play the role of the KM, but we can't know for sure, and he might play more than 1 role. I was going to add this info myself, but I didn't know how to. Your way is good. Somethingwickedly (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Episode Title sources

I find it interesting (and a bit annoying) how obsessed some of the editors of this page are about sources for episode names, while elsewhere on Wikipedia sources with as much repute are perfectly fine. Surely, as a non-BLP (and given the fact that these sources have yet to be wrong in episode titles of previous seasons), and given that there is no consensus on these being unreliable sources, wikipedia won't explode if we put the likely episode name down in the meantime? ― Padenton |☎  17:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they're right or not, the source needs to be reliable. This consensus you speak of can be found at WP:SOURCE, the policy on which we base our claims of unreliability. Also, it's basically normal common sense that a source starting with "A trusted source has revealed to us ..." is unreliable. We should always attempt to go by the original source, not through secondary sources, but in this case it is impossible. And finally, simply because other Wikipedia articles do it, does not mean it is right and/or able to be done everywhere. Alex|The|Whovian 21:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR. An official source is nice, but the source is better than having 'TBA'. "Also, it's basically normal common sense that a source starting with 'A trusted source has revealed to us ...' is unreliable." According to you. According to anyone else, it's treated with the same credibility as the author/publisher of the article. That's what 'trusted source' means. ― Padenton |☎  21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that you're not improving Wikipedia, you're cluttering it with unreliable sources. Difference. WP:IAR isn't simply a policy to use when you're not getting your way. And it's according to me and the thousands of other editors that actually know how to edit Wikipedia properly by using official and reliable sources. How are we to know who the "trusted source" is? The creator of the show? Or a keyboard warrior? There's no rush to put up new episode titles. Alex|The|Whovian 22:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

First off, I haven't added any of those episode names, I'm merely asking why a few of you are being so obsessed with sources that you don't like, so much so that you even violated 3RR today to do it. Provide your source for this "thousands of editors" that you are claiming agree with you. WP:NORUSH is an essay, not a policy nor a guideline. It's also about creating/deleting articles, not adding information to an article that already exists. Lastly, take a chill pill. ― Padenton |☎  22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Improving Wikipedia by reverting policy-disagreeing edits. All I have to say here is that the reason I need to take a "chill pill" is because of editors like yourself that don't know how to edit properly. Learn what a reliable source is. It also doesn't matter whether you've added the episode titles yourself, you're supporting the addition of them alongside unreliable sources, hence you are guilty by association. You've also noticed that there's a few of us reverting such edits, not just myself. Seems like something obvious here. Alex|The|Whovian 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being a stickler for the rules so long as you're willing to go and double check said rules. I'd lay off telling people to take chill pills though; the rule on that is WP:CIVIL. To get back on topic, the Wall Street Journal source [5] would be covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. In my opinion, it meets the reliability threshold for a straight fact like an episode title or which writer worked on which episode. However, while it does say what the episode's title is, it does not say which specific writers worked on it. Somethingwickedly may have been confused or stretching (and out of line for calling people "lazy"). But Drovethrughosts has since found support for the content in Futon Critic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is over, but yes, The Wall Street Journal is clearly an acceptable source. Just because "blog" appears in the URL doesn't make it not reliable or unacceptable to use as a source. They were using the episode press releases that were released by HBO yesterday as the source for the titles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

195.191.35.42 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC) 7.98

 Already done: Zap2it's reporting 7.997, someone's already added that (rounded to 8.00). ― Padenton|✉   16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Remaining writing credits

Now that the leaked episodes confirm (or maybe somewhere else does too) that Dave Hill's episode is #4, I believe we can fill in the writers for 7-10 with David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. I remember seeing a WP:RS say that there was 7 episodes by them, 2 by Bryan Cogman, and 1 by Dave Hill, though I can't seem to find it now. It's also possible I'm misremembering S5 as S4, where they (also?) wrote 7 episodes, but I think it was the same for S5 too. Does anyone else remember this source? ― Padenton|✉   17:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source stating these facts, and they will be added to the table. Alex|The|Whovian 02:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I asked.― Padenton|✉   02:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Commented out draft summaries

@AlexTheWhovian: We can discuss here these reverts, better than edit summaries. [6].

Now, as I said, Help:Hidden_text explicitly states that an appropriate use for the comment tags is "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future (such as when a known event will occur). Larger amounts of information should be prepared on a subpage of the article's talk page or in user space." Which is what we are doing. No one is disputing the fact that they should not be uncommented until the episode airs.

As this is not a large amount of information (s.t. it would hinder other editors), as keeping it there will allow people to better edit it rather than keep it hidden here in the talk page, and as it will also discourage people further from adding in a summary before it's time, this is probably the best way to go. ― Padenton|✉   23:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Game of Thrones (season 5)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Game of Thrones (season 5) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://watchersonthewall.com/new-cast-members-confirmed-and-exciting-new-views-in-osuna/

  Triggered by \bwatchersonthewall\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://watchersonthewall.com/season-five-casting-news-updates/

  Triggered by \bwatchersonthewall\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://watchersonthewall.com/split-prepares-game-thrones-season-5-filming-actors-return-set/

  Triggered by \bwatchersonthewall\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

Correct name in episode list from Marcella to Myrcella.

79.102.142.127 (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 Already done― Padenton|✉   05:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Australian Business Insider and "divergences" from the books affecting ratings

The reason I referenced the Australian version of Business Insider [7] alongside the American one [8] is because they do not have the exact same text. As of right now, the Australian version refers to "divergences that have upset fans." The American version said that earlier today (when I first added the text) but has since been changed. If you hit CTRL-F "divergences" in the Australian version, you'll see the text in question. If you hit CTRL-F "divergences" in the U.S. version, you'll jump to a comment from the author saying that the article used to contain the text (no real explanation for the change, though). I felt that "deviations" was a more direct word, so I used it instead of "divergences."

Edit summaries are limited in length. If "this is unsourced" was the only reason for deleting the text, then we're good to go. Is there anything else we should discuss about this line?

It may be relevant that this source was also discussed at talk:Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I now see that the American one has since been updated. When I was looking at it earlier, they were still identical (or near identical). But I wonder if we should be even using an article as a source when we know that the american version has been updated since the original article, without the divergences comment. ― Padenton|✉   01:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

They might just be meant for different audiences. I guess we could wait a day and see if the Australian one keeps the content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What order should the sections be?

Leave your opinions here. --rayukk | talk 12:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Game of Thrones (season 5). 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/20150714065122/http://www.empireonline.com/awards2015/winners/hero.asp to http://www.empireonline.com/awards2015/winners/hero.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.amazon.co.uk/Game-Thrones-Season-5-DVD-x/dp/B010BY2AQ6/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.jbhifi.com.au/movies-tv-shows/movies-tv-shows-on-sale/tv-fantasy/game-of-thrones-season-5/927320/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Emilia Clarke-Emmys 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"Game of thrones (season 5" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Game of thrones (season 5 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Game of thrones (season 5 until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)