Talk:Game of Thrones

A Song of Ice and Fire Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A Song of Ice and FireWikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireTemplate:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireA Song of Ice and Fire articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I checked, but might have overlooked this in the article. What source verifies that "Game of Thrones" is the title? I'm curious, since the first book is called A Game of Thrones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.159 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the official announcement with a cursory search, but it's being referred to as Game of Thrones almost everywhere. The closest thing to a reliable source I've found is this from Hollywood Reporter. --Amalthea 14:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers folks, editing the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.246.76 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the section and I think that we should try to reduce a lot the spoiler level. I'm aware that they are permited in Wikipedia, but I think that including spoilers from the first three books is going to far. Specially when they are completely unneeded: you can make a "series overview" without any need to go into specifics and describe the War of the Five Kings or Jon's rise through the Watch. In my opinion this section should include a broad description of the main themes of the series and not much more.

Additionally, we can't be sure that the plot of the series will match the plot of the books. Either for decisions of the writers or external factors such as actors availability, things could change.--RR (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've removed it. It was a direct copy from A Song of Ice and Fire#Plot summary anyway, and I've linked there instead in the section. Amalthea 08:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:BOLDly moved Game of Thrones (TV series) to the new title Game of Thrones before I noticed this (old) move request, sorry. Two of the three oppose !votes are moot since they were based on "At least until the series get greenlighted" (which it is now) and recent official references to the TV series have called it A Game of Thrones (the new 15-minute preview reel was released under the title Game of Thrones though). However, there may still be opposition since the book may still be the primary use of the term even if it starts with an "A" in the title. Feel free to move the article back to its old title if my move was inappropriate. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think character descriptions need to reduce adjectives that reveal too much about the character's story arc. I'm fine with describing Tyrion as "sarcastic and cynical" because this will likely be evident from the first line Tyrion recites. Joffrey, however, should not be described as "the inhumanly cruel oldest son of Robert Baratheon and heir to the Iron Throne". We likely won't find out that Joffrey is "inhumanly cruel" until several episodes in. At the start of the book, Joffrey is all chivalry toward Sansa. So calling him "inhumanly cruel" here could be construed as a spoiler.—Furrever (talk 15:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, the TV series will likely contain variations from the books. Just because something happens in the books there is no guarantee it will happen in the TV series, or in the same manner. For this reason, descriptions that draw on the books should be minimized or eliminated in favour of what we know is definitely the case on-screen.--Werthead (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bring this up again, I think the character descriptions are revealing way too much. Saying that Jaime Lannister is "clandestinely involved in an incestual relationship with [his sister]" is an out an out spoiler. This descriptions may be suitable once the pilot as aired, but until then this is too much information for the casual viewer.—Furrever (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, mainly because WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Intimate plot details/events/etc. from the book have been placed in what is supposed to be one-line, brief, and simple character descriptions. Until the episodes air or HBO reveals anything, we should not presume that what has happened in the books will also occur in the TV series as well. —Mirlen^Talk 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There is no spoiler policy on Wikipedia (there was one once but it was removed as unencyclopedic), but there are no guarantees the TV series will follow the course of the books and there are already changes to character descriptions, ages and as a result the timeline. Keeping the TV series as separate as possible is a good idea.--Werthead (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting me straight guys. I suppose I had the right idea, just the wrong justification.—Furrever (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this article so far has stuck with the basic facts of the casting and the production. What do others think of having some well-sourced commentary on what the series will be like and how it fits in with HBO's other offerings? James Poniewozik's blog at time.com would be a good place to start. I understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page, but it seems to me that a bit of well-sourced context for the facts of the article would be helpful. Nwlaw63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The reason why there's basically no commentary on GoT is because the TV series is currently still non-existent. Once Season 1 is officially greenlit (hence, validating the existence of the series), we should be seeing more information that will allow us to substantially expand beyond the bare-bone facts. By then, the crew and cast should be open enough to give notable commentary like other TV articles of FA status, such as Lost (TV series), have. As far as the critical reception section goes, I think we should wait to add it until after the series starts airing. Then the fact that the three TV critics exhorted HBO to greenlit the series can be added as an addition to their review of the series itself. (For instance, the sentence could go along the lines of 'TIME's James Poniewozik, who expressed support for the series before it was greenlit, said "[insert quote from his review of the series after airing].") —Mirlen^Talk 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Hollywood Reporter claim that the series will almost certainly be greenlit - it seems relevant. If others thinks it falls into the rumor category, or the category of something that shouldn't be in the article until series is or isn't greenlit, let me know here. Obviously, this will have to be changed/removed once a decision is made on the series. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if the previous sentences saying the series would probably be picked up should be removed now that the series is greenlit. Opinions? Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone had removed them but I restored; given that we still know relatively little about the series, I thought it was still interesting/notable and helps with the development chronology.— TAnthony^Talk 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's not yet much here, but I wanted to comment on Mirlen's recent changes, which I feel go somewhat against standard article format. The lead paragraph of an article should summarize the entire article, basically touching upon each section to come; this edit turned the lead pgh into a single summarizing sentence which doesn't do that. By subsequently removing the Pilot section here and moving the pickup notice to the end of the Development section (uh, Development means things that occur before production, btw) we have an odd chronology of optioning the rights, shooting a pilot, pilot gets picked up, and then Casting. Weird.— TAnthony^Talk 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can rename the Development section so that it'll encompass the info contained within it (what do you think about Conception?), but I don't feel there is enough information about the series for us to summarize the main article. Also, my problem with the previous edits was that it placed too much emphasis and detail on the pilot episode. If you look at the FA status TV series articles, such as Lost (TV series) or House (TV series), none of them have separate sections devoted to detailing the pilot. In the long term perspective, such a section in a TV show article isn't necessary. Notice the absence of such a section in Manual of Style for TV articles. As for your objections that my changes go against the standard article format, I'll reference the style guidelines for TV series articles:

Minutiae details about when the pilot was filmed shouldn't be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Mentioning when the pilot was first broadcasted, on the other hand, is certainly appropriate to mention. However, we do not have a confirmed, verifiable date as to when the series will first premiere.

As for the sequencing of placing casting after conception/development, that is merely the order that can be found in this particular section of the style guidelines as well as in aforementioned FA status TV articles, i.e. Lost (TV series) and House (TV series).

As an afterthought, the lead paragraph looks bare (compare to, say, the sample from the guidelines used as an example of a good lead paragraph below) because we have very little idea as to what the series will generally be about.

All we know that HBO's GoT is going to be an adaptation of the original ASoIaF series, since we shouldn't assume that what is in the books will necessarily be in the series, as they are two separate works. —Mirlen^Talk 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lead, MOS:TV#Lead paragraphs notes "The lead paragraphs of an article should serve both as a quick introduction to the television show and a concise overview of the article itself," and after your Simpsons example it goes on to say: "The subsequent paragraphs should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principle cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique." This basically means there should be a sentence or so in the lead summarizing each section to come in the article. By that account, I think at least the pickup of the pilot and potential airdate should be mentioned in some way because it represents the subsequent information about production. And the reader has to get down to the end of the first section to find out date-related material on the series? This series is not going to (potentially) air until a year from now, we have to present what information we have in the most logical way, not stick to a layout that will only be truly effective when we have more material. What you seem to be calling "redundant" (mentioning something in the lead and expanding upon it in a later section) is exactly what we're supposed to be doing. Ultimately I agree that a section on the pilot alone would not be necessary, but at this point that is all there is to the series. This section you note above gives the basic chronology: development, casting, filming. The way the article currently is, it seems jarring to read about March 2010 pickup and then jump back to the May 2009 casting of Dinklage. This isn't exactly a deal-breaker because I understand that we don't have a lot of info to cover. But the article's current lead introduces the topic but really tells me nothing of what is to come.— TAnthony^Talk 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there's too little information regarding the series as a whole to make a summary in the lead paragraphs. And often times, if you look in the case of FA status TV articles, the pickup of the pilot is not mentioned in the lead paragraphs. I can understand including the airdate, but we don't have the exact date -- only a vague, temporary, 'maybe-maybe not' guess. I feel like if we're going to put up the airdate, it should be a confirmed, accurate, and exact fact.

Also, I'm certainly not against mentioning something in the lead and expanding it upon a later section ("something" is a pretty vague word, you'll note, so I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "something"), I just don't think it's necessary to summarize the article (which is supposed to be about the series) in the lead paragraphs at this point in time when we have so little information about the actual series. And I'm afraid I don't understand why it's jarring to read about the March 2010 pickup of the series and then back to the May 2009 casting of Dinklage, when that's the order in which the events actually happened. Or perhaps I'm not doing a better job of understanding your point; are talking about how it's jarring to find the Development and conception section followed up by Casting, rather than Casting and then Development and conception? Because in that case, it'd probably be best to take that issue up with WikiProject Television. —Mirlen^Talk 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me try to break it down.

The lead paragraph should summarize the article, not necessarily the topic as a whole. There is no series. There is a pilot. And a potential series, because nothing has been shot or aired. When the article is actually about a full series there will be no need to make a big deal about the pilot in the lead, but for now that's all the article is about! You really think we should have a vague lead and hide information about the series pickup deeper in the article until the show airs? And what if production is shut down after filming two episodes, what if they produce them all but they never air? The article needs to present the available information in a helpful way, and evolve as the information evolves. Why should the reader have to go through half the article to find out that the series has been greenlit and will likely air in 2011?

Not sure what you don't understand about the chronology: Dinklage was cast in May 2009 and then the series was picked up in March 2010. The article chronology kind of reverses that because we're reading about the pickup before the casting.

MOS:TV#Background/production lists these suggested topics to be covered in series TV articles:

• Conception and development
• Format
• Writing
• Casting
• Filming
• Production design
• Filming locations
• Effects
• Music
• Cancellation and future

You will note they are listed basically in the chronological order which these things would occur in the production of a TV series. "Conception and development" equates to Martin writing the books, HBO optioning the rights, somebody conceiving that the events of the first novel would span the entire first season. "Writing" is Benioff and Weiss writing the pilot. Then casting. "Filming" commences with the pilot and ... then it gets picked up. Later this section contains info about other episodes or whatever. Then the article would start delving into subtopics that diverge from linear chronology: Production design, locations, etc. etc. I think you are thinking that the shooting of the pilot falls into development process, but it doesn't; development is what happens before. — TAnthony^Talk 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think writing a lead paragraph to concisely summarize the rest of the article when we know too little about the series is premature. Because that's not necessarily the kind of info you'd put in the lead paragraphs for a TV series, I feel that the important info we ought to put about the pilot is the airdate, which we don't know aside from a vague 'maybe it'll air in the spring' guess. There's not really all that much to the article, I personally don't see the trouble for the reader to read the conception and development to find info about a potential airdate (not the verified airdate), which is the first section he/she reads. I think it's better to wait for a confirmed airdate before adding it to the lead paragraphs. But I can settle for adding the potential airdate (even if it's not the confirmed airdate) in the lead paragraphs, since you seem to feel so strongly about this, but I do not think info as to when the pilot was filmed is all that necessary.

I honestly don't think it's that jarring to read about the pickup before the casting. Information about the pick-up about the series would go under the Conception and development section (FA status TV article Lost (TV series) doesn't mention the pick-up date, but they do mention the debut of the series on-screen in the Conception section) and the casting of Dinklage, which happened incredibly early on because he was the producers' (as well as the author's and the fans') dream pick, should be in the Casting section. Also, in the long run, specific dates as to when the casting happened or when the series was green lit probably won't matter too much -- see the FA status TV articles as examples. There, each article's respective casting section don't even mention when certain actors were cast, only that 'so and so was cast for this part because [insert reason]' of '[names of these following actors] were cast in season 1.' Bringing this up in this discussion might be a little premature on my part, but we can change some of the actions -- at least those under the Background and production heading -- to that format (less chronology-based and more concept-based) after we know more about the series, and I imagine we will have to do so anyway if we were to submit this article for GA or FA consideration in the future.

You're right that the shooting of the pilot would fall under the Filming section rather than the Development section. If I had placed it under there, it was my mistake. But I think info about the pickup of the series and its airdate (debut) would fall under Conception and development. —Mirlen^Talk 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had more experience with each other's edits so we would know if we can trust each other's opinion or one of us is just crazy, LOL. I've always basically agreed with you when we're talking about the completed article down the road, but for right now, it's an article about a TV pilot. That's all that exists, and pickup or not, a million things can happen. Check out featured article Aquaman. I really see no reason to keep this article so vague for so long, info is not necessarily "premature" if it's sourced and all we have. My biggest problem is the fact that the lead paragraph isn't telling the reader a whole lot, like who's in it or if it's going to possibly air tomorrow or in 2015. The lead should summarize the article so a reader doesn't necessarily have to continue reading. A little later on I'll make an attempt at a tweak and we'll see what you think.— TAnthony^Talk 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your change, thanks for the compromise. You'll see I made some more alterations.— TAnthony^Talk 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I'm glad we came to an agreement. I also apologize for responding a little late, but I had RL spring upon me some untimely work. I'm still getting through that, so I'll check in with you more in-depth later. But briefly skimming through the preliminary edits, I think the lead paragraphs is better. We'll probably have to change the format again when we have more info, but you already know this. We'll tackle that as new info comes. :) Thanks! —Mirlen^Talk 06:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the wording a bit in the lede - the 'had previously stated line' seemed very awkward.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor point, but the reference to 'three storylines' seems odd in that the number is both subjective and unexplained. I realize that the number comes from the plot summary article that gives the 'three storylines' figure, but that article explains that contention by telling about Danny/Others/Westeros. A reader of the books would probably say there's 50 storylines, not 3. Three categories of storylines, perhaps. My point is that a very brief description shouldn't focus on a subjective number without explanation, but should probably instead make the point that there are lots of storylines - 'multiple storylines' would be indisputable. Also, the writing of this paragraph seems a little clunky all told - I wonder if there's a way of tweaking the whole thing so it reads cleaner. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, did a quick rewrite based on an overview sentence I wrote for some of the book articles.— TAnthony^Talk 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent - that's exactly how I would have changed it, if I was a better writer and less lazy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 03:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't strictly a necessary item in the article by any means (after all, not all shows conform to the same format), but I was curious if David Benioff and Dan Weiss could be considered 'creators' of the television adaptation as they seemed to have took the helm of the project since its origins. —Mirlen^Talk 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it seems that way. Never mind. —Mirlen^Talk 07:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has no one noticed as of yet that the time of the beginning of on-set production is in the future, but stated as "began" (26th of July 2010)? Also, the whole section is written in past. And the links don't give a clue to when the actual date is. To be honest there doesn't even seem to be a date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.236.74 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've fixed up the filming locations section, including its tense. You're right that there is no on-set production beginning date, but we do have the starting date for the principal photography for the first season, so I've changed it from on-set production to principal photography. If there's anything else you see that needs additional editing, feel free to do so. —Mirlen^Talk 02:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, what's the craic with the political stuff here? "Province of Ulster in the north of Ireland". I thought the source said "Northern Ireland"? I don't care much, but it seems pointless to try and make a political point in this article.80.45.152.173 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that are many articles from mainstream newspapers and magazines — such as Chicago Tribune, TIME, Entertainment Weekly, and The Guardian — noting the pre-production/premiere hype of the series from critics and fans alike, which apparently is unusual for a TV show. I think it's notable enough to warrant a mention or two in the Reception section. Thoughts? —Mirlen^Talk 06:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an excellent idea Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll try to get around writing that as a way to start-off. —Mirlen^Talk 07:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to suggest this - The Guardian suggesting that the GoT is the most anticipated television show ever made is certainly noteworthy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the new section - it's a pretty lame beginning, but at least it's started - improvements welcome here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBO sent out the first 6 episodes to critics and a huge amount of reviews for the show have now been published in various places, should we start adding some here? LeftHandedGuitarist (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion of the add to a link to the Wikia site for the TV series has an erroneous reason given for it. Links to external Wikis are allowed, indeed encouraged to avoid fancruft on Wikipedia itself, but only for Wikis which are 'stable' (by which I take it mean they must have been around for a while) and have a number of editors. For these reasons, the deletion of the link to the GoT Wikia is correct at this time, but reinstating it once the Wikia has been established for longer and has more contributors will also be correct, otherwise editors will have to go through virtually every single franchise of note on Wikipedia and remove the links to their respective specific Wikis, of which there are many.--Werthead (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether other editors think mention of the controversy about the environmental damage inflicted by the use of sand in filming in Malta is relevant - it's certainly supported by numerous secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to see episode summaries at this stage, but is there any indication of how many there will be in the first season? Or episode length, though I'd feel safe in guessing c. 60 mins. Barsoomian (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 10 episode first season, 60 minutes each. LeftHandedGuitarist (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first episode is called Winter is Coming, sourced from HBO's schedules, so we can look at creating a page for that in the near future.--Werthead (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of people picking on this page for pedantic reasons whilst leaving others totally untouched. So, from the top, Westeros.org and Winter is Coming are recognised authorities on the TV series, are linked as such by HBO's website and have listed the international airing dates with the cooperation of the original broadcasters and HBO. If it is somehow unacceptable to do this, great, but I expect to see similar tables removed immediately from every other TV show entry which has them. Be consistent in how you apply the rules or don't do it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, deleting valid, accurate and useful information for spurious reasons is a violation of the spirit of the website.--Werthead (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on your talk page, such lists are deprecated, you can read that on WP:MOSTV. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, FYI if I come across such lists I usually remove them, as I did here. On the "recognised authorities", they're fan-sites and therefor not acceptable as sources. If the info is from HBO, then link to HBO instead. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Specialist websites about the subject in question which have existed for a decade or more and are used to release information from official sources cannot be used as sources for Wikipedia. Holy smokes, we're going to have to delete half the entries on the site. Better get to it then.--Werthead (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this listing again, please provide a proper argument why we should include this list which nobody is gonna care about after 18 april. Yoenit (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add details about its soft-porn content 203.219.215.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Why? It's not like it focuses for long on the sex scenes. Those scenes are in the show because they're in the book. --207.223.31.214 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is par for the course for premium cable. It's also very violent; also par for the course. Jacotto (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]