Talk:Game of Thrones season 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Created too early?[edit]

My concern is that this article was created too early. There is no information about this season of the TV series except that it has been ordered and, vaguely, which novel it might adapt. There is for instance no premiere date, no casting or other production information. The information now in the Production section appears to have been added only to give the article a veneer of substance: It has been copied, without attribution, from the main article and the Season 3 article, is based on years-old sources and pertains to earlier seasons. In technical terms, I doubt that the topic passes WP:GNG. I suggest that the article should be started only if there is information that can't be contained in the main article, such as casting announcements, and that it should be redirected back to the main article in the interim.  Sandstein  14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. This should be redirected.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 15:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Way too early. Any information is already available on the main article or the list of episodes page. There's no information beyond the fact that it's been renewed. Redirect for now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Way too early. Even though it has been confirmed, the details should be merged with either the Game of Thrones article, or the season 3 article. MisterShiney ✉ 20:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've again reverted to a redirect.  Sandstein  21:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on this. If this continues to happen, I will just lock the article.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why dont you delete this moot conversation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.81 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are offtopic, discussions aren't deleted, but may be archived after a time.  Sandstein  20:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Actor[edit]

It says that Hafþór replaces Ian Whyte on the role of Ser Gregor Clegane, but the actual actor that portrayed that role was Conan Stevens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.187.33.193 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Stevens played that role in season 1, and was replaced by Ian Whyte in season 2, so in that case, Hafþór is replacing Whyte. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

I worry that the section is becoming excessively long. Although an alternative view would be welcome, I wonder if Rochelle Keyhan of HBO Watch lacks notability. Correct me if I'm wrong but, HBO Watch just looks like a fan's review website. I also think the Josh Wigler's quote could be trimmed - the first sentence just tells us there's controversy, something we've already established. It also talks about the Jaime's character arc, something Marcotte also mentions - we could use one of those two, but we don't need to use both.

I don't want to tread on any toes by removing content that users have spent time adding to the article without discussion - I know that can be frustrating. But please feel free to add your input here. How long should the section be? Perhaps we could move the bulk of it over to the 'Breaker of Chains' article? Thanks for your contributions. Saint91 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint, per WP:Summary style, one of these articles -- Game of Thrones (season 4) or Breaker of Chains -- should be the main article for discussing the Jaime and Cersei rape scene controversy, and the other article should summarize what is covered in the main article while pointing people to the main article. Currently, the Breaker of Chains article is "the other article." In this and this edit summary, the first of which you may have seen, I indicated that the Breaker of Chains article should be the main article for this material. But now I'm not sure. It currently seems best to me to not have that article, which should address other aspects of the episode as well, overwhelmed by the controversy information. There's also the fact that this is obviously not just a controversy about that episode, but this season's biggest controversy (only controversy of this season so far, I think) and one of the show's biggest controversies. If this topic didn't have so much to address with regard to that controversy, the section on it in the Game of Thrones (season 4) article would not currently be five paragraphs long (four paragraphs if I go ahead and combine the first short paragraph with the second paragraph).
With regard to the Rochelle Keyhan material that FeministPublicWorks (talk · contribs) added, Rochelle Keyhan passes as a WP:Reliable source and is no less notable in that regard than the other commentators; her commentary is also beneficial since it offers a different perspective that is shared by some fans of the book series (though that discussion is clearly due to the television controversy having caused people to analyze, and fans of the book series to reanalyze, the book version of the Jaime and Cersei scene). I included the Josh Wigler quote because it specifically notes that "this scene stands out as one of the show's most debated and controversial changes from the books," and also comments on the Jaime's arc as additional commentary; note that, unlike Marcotte, he does not state that Jamie's arc may never recover. Additional commentary on the same aspects of a topic are common in Critical reception sections on Wikipedia, even if stating exactly the same thing or something similar, as is also the case for the critical reception information included in the Breaker of Chains article; it shows that more than one person agrees. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sandstein has removed all of the rape controversy material from this article and summarized it in the Breaker of Chains article; this edit shows the finalized product. Sandstein's action in this regard seems to be in response to this IP, who engaged in WP:Disruptive editing by repeatedly removing all of the rape material from this article, and was eventually blocked by Sandstein for WP:Edit warring. I left an edit note about the IP's description of the sources. Either way, Sandstein has done a good job of summarizing the content in the Breaker of Chains article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recommend that further coverage of this scene occur in Breaker of Chains#Rape scene. I think that the coverage can still be improved by mentioning discussions of why this scene (as opposed to the many scenes depicting other violent acts) attracted particular notice and criticism, and what its significance in the context of the portrayal of sexual violence in American media is. But for now I focused on merging the existing content all in one place and copyediting it. I omitted the opinion by HBO Watch because, per its "About" page, it is a blog with no editorial oversight.  Sandstein  15:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. I should have taken the time to analyze the HBOWatch source (I didn't even click on it to observe the contents); so I was wrong on that particular matter. I still do think that it's worth noting that the episode has caused some fans to analyze the book version of the scene and draw rape parallels to the television portrayal of the scene, though, which is why I added that aspect back to the Breaker of Chains article. But for me to state that "the episode has caused some fans to analyze the book version of the scene and draw rape parallels to the television portrayal of the scene," I'd need to include a WP:Reliable source supporting that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, yeah, I of course saw this; thanks. I did consider that you'd linked the Rape article because it is one of the exceptions of WP:Overlinking; the context, like you noted, makes it an important link. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the HBOWatch source, I think I clicked on the link (judging by the color indicating that I clicked on it before very recently today)...but only skimmed the contents. But looking at it closer a few minutes ago, I see that it states: "Rochelle is the Director of Feminist Public Works and GeeksForCONsent. She loves writing about gender and social justice issues, and wishes she was the mother of dragons!" It's safe to assume that Rochelle Keyhan is User:FeministPublicWorks or is connected to her, which is a WP:Conflict of interest (WP:COI) matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - we should have made the affiliation clear in a note on the edit, and we need to make a more specific username. I will remedy that now - after talking to my team we will each make a separate username, and make it clear which of us is posting (this is Rochelle, btw, but this original edit was done by the team)! We will also be cautious if writing about things we are or may appear to be affiliated with. As it stands, we were attempting to remedy the biased representations in the current draft of the commentary on the rape scene, because as it stands now it takes the unequivocal stance that the scene in the book was consensual. We were simply trying to round that out with the opposing opinions, and attempted to present that information as merely another opinion, as opposed to THE opinion. As it reads now, the Wikipedia section on the rape reads as though Wikipedia agrees with and is endorsing only one point of view: that the scene was not rape in the book. Additionally - as related to the reliability of HBOWatch as a source - I'm not sure what part of the "About Us" section was read, but all articles are edited. From the "About Us" page: "All posts go through a rigorous editorial process before publishing but we aren’t afraid to post the fan’s points of view and don’t fear controversy."--FeministPublicWorks (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've blocked your account because shared accounts are forbidden, see WP:ROLE. You're all invited to create individual accounts. But please note that you should not write about material with respect to which you have a conflict of interest, see WP:COI. If an editor who is unaffiliated with your website considers what you wrote interesting and reliable enough to add it to articles, they are free to do so, but you shouldn't do it yourself.  Sandstein  17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rochelle, as you can see, before your recent edits to the Rape scene section of the of the Breaker of Chains article, as shown here and here, I'd already included a bit about some fans believing that the book version of the scene implies rape (and Sandstein tweaked it). Just like last time (shown here and here), I didn't use the words "is rape," and that's because the source does not. If your HBOWatch commentary passes as a WP:Reliable source, it can perhaps be included...with WP:Due weight (do read the WP:Due weight policy). Since you and your team have a WP:COI on this matter, it is best that, if you still want your viewpoint included, you post a request at Talk:Breaker of Chains to include some of your material on it. Indicate your WP:COI connection there, refer to this discussion that was had about it, and request that a bit of your material be included. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't realize there might be an undue weight issue when it came to describing a scene as definitively consensual when it at least started with verbal and physical resistance. Especially when it takes the stand as the introduction to a section about "controversy". My most recent edit involved no new citations, only attempted to modify the language so the section didn't seem to be making a choice over which interpretation is valid. I will surely post in the Talk:Breaker of Chains thread. Thank you! Rochelle FPW (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rochelle FPW (talk · contribs), it's appropriate due weight to describe the scene as consensual, and this is because the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources describe it as such. Like the WP:Due weight policy makes clear, we give especial weight to the majority view. Your view can be added with WP:Due weight, which means it should not be presented as prominently or more prominently than the majority view. But like I noted above and here, I addressed your view in the Game of Thrones (season 4) article and in the Breaker of Chains article.
On a side note: Remember to indent your replies, per WP:Indent. I fixed your "22:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" indentation above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for walking me through things - I appreciate it. And apologize for not indenting! I will of course in the future be more mindful. Moving over now to the conversation happening here. Rochelle FPW (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Oathkeeper[edit]

There's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?[edit]

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The RfC concerning Westeros.org was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be addressed separately. 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. The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What order should the sections be?[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Game of Thrones (season 4). 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:

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) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Game of Thrones (season 4). 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:

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) 23:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They couldn't use big horses in the Iceland-shot scenes?[edit]

[1]

This is pretty interesting. I suspect if I cited a PJ video in the article I'd be reverted though. Anyone see this in any "reliable" sources?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct cast order[edit]

So, I have painstakingly went through each and every episode per season to make sure the cast order is correct because others have been changing it. The order is now complete. It also follows Wikipedia's cast order guidelines precisely. For a very long time, this has not been the case, as several cast members were incorrectly listed in the middle of the list when they should been included last. What do you think? I don't see any reason to change it from this point. — Branjsmith94 02:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_of_Thrones_season_4&oldid=1216301004"