Jump to content

Talk:Game of Thrones season 6

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

Casting section

[edit]

I feel the casting section has become a bit unencyclopedic. It contains references to tabloids like Daily Mirror and Daily Mail which are considered not to be reliable sources (WP:PUS), and contains speculation regarding cast members returning which are not confirmed which is WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A character/actor should only be added once there is an official source explicitly stating that they will be in Season 6. Sources that state "Actor has been seen around filming" shouldn't be considered as additions to the cast list. Alex|The|Whovian 16:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think we should handle Kit Harington/Jon Snow? Reports of him possibly returning are notable as it's been covered by reliable sources (we can use the Vanity Fair cites), but should he be removed from the actual Cast section? Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem finding an appropriate place elsewhere in the article to mention the speculation about Harington. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why uncommented the following actors in the article: Aidan Gillen, Michiel Huisman, Nathalie Emmanuel, Dean-Charles Chapman, Iwan Rheon, Eugene Simon. These actors had very weak sources which merely consisted of a sighting on set or in the case of Chapman and Simon a twitter post with the hashtag #GOTS6. rayukk | talk 12:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WinterIsComing.net: RS?

[edit]

Refresh my memory: Did anyone ever establish that WinterIsComing.net is RS? It's got a fansite vibe but they seem to be running a real tight ship, and I may have confused them with WatchersontheWall. However, I'll stand by my two recent reverts on the grounds that the source itself doesn't confirm that these actors are coming back (only that they were spotted on or near the set).[1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for including speculation

[edit]

@AlexTheWhovian:

This concerns these edits: [2] [3] [4]

Alex says that fan theories etc. should only be reported in the article if they turn out to be true. My take is that the fact that the fans are wondering whether Jon Snow will survive by possessing Ghost's body or by being brought back to life by Melissandre is significant whether either of them turns out to be true or not. The fact that this specific fanspec is taking place has been written up in multiple reliable sources (Entertainment Weekly, Vanity Fair). I don't think we should wait a year to find out which ones are true and I don't think that will make them any more or less relevant. Even two years from now, I think it would be pretty cool for the article to say, "Right after 'Mother's Mercy' people thought he might be warging out or brought back by the Red Priestess. Who knew he'd really be [resurrected by Elvis/whatever]?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for fan speculation, no matter where it comes from. What further understanding does the specific theories give to the article (especially at the given time), after it's already been declared that the amount of fan speculation is high? Alex|The|Whovian 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A fair question. We should consider two kinds of readers. 1) If fans of the show don't already see the information here, they're likely to add it, and then it might not be as well sourced or concisely phrased as it is currently. 2) For Wikipedia readers who don't follow the show closely, the comment, "He may come back to life" leads naturally and immediately to the question "How would he do that?"
Wikipedia's value in these cases is that it limits its answer to notable content only. A casual reader can trust that Wikipedia will report only content that can be backed up and will provide sources for further detail if needed. A fansite, on the other hand, is likely to mix fanon with canon without saying which is which and to get into detail that an encyclopedia reader would find unnecessary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections

[edit]

Regarding the recent edits by @AlexTheWhovian:, I think we should go back to a slightly modified version of the original order of sections to keep a little consistency with other articles (see Mr. Robot and Breaking Bad (season 4) as examples). Also per WP:MOSTV I think the order is somewhat implied. My proposition is the following order: (Plot), Cast, Episodes, Production, Release, Reception. --rayukk | talk 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have discussed this before changing it, my bad. My basis is from 1) the majority of television series articles I've worked on, such as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2) which passed Good Article status and has the episodes first, 2) the fact that the episode table is basically an extension of the main plot, hence it should be placed directly after it, and 3) the order from the guideline of MOS:TV, and how MOS:TV#Plot section is listed first in the main content and contains guidelines for episode summaries. I hope that makes my recent edits more clearer, and that we can gain a consensus on the order of content. I'd personally have no issue with the order you've put across either. Alex|The|Whovian 00:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cast photo section

[edit]

I've always thought it strange that the cast listing for Game of Thrones articles just simply has a multiple image template that runs vertically down the entire side. A format that I thought would A. Make more sense, given the relation of certain cast members in the show, and B. Provide less disconnection and running into sections further down the page, would be to group them in a horizontal multiple image template similar to the American Horror Story: Hotel article, as one example. @AlexTheWhovian: has objected to this change, however, and I can understand wanting to maintain the status quo, especially because the other seasons are currently in the previous format, but I would highly suggest changing the previous seasons to a horizontal format as well. The added fact that AlexTheWhovian stated that there was a large amount of whitespace that resulted from changing the format may be an indication that the two columns creates white space if someone's screen resolution is not large enough. So I'm guessing it looks bad on some screen resolutions. I'd suggest making the cast list one column, but I'm not certain that would work given the large list. Hoping something can be done to address the status quo format, as I'm not a fan, especially given the sort of random highlighting of certain actors, without any sort of context. For example, why is/was Natalie Dormer highlighted, but Emilia Clarke, who will likely have a large part in the next season, is not listed. AlexTheWhovian suggested adding her to the status quo image list, but I don't want to stretch it even more than it already is. Any other suggestions or opinions? Calibrador (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such edits fall under WP:BRD - you made a bold edit, you were reverted with a reason, then you discus. Not force your edit with another revert then discuss. We make Wikipedia accessible for all, so if your method if not valid for certain screen resolutions, then it is not valid at all and cannot be implemented. Yes, AHS does it and yes it's because their cast list is in single file, but that cannot work here. If the cast lists here were changed to single-file, that would result in even more white space to the right of the article - not valid. Once the article is expanded upon, especially once the season premieres, then it will remain in its current section. To my understanding, random cast members are highlighted in images, so really, there's not much need to put images for a certain cast member in every season. The image themselves don't even add further understanding to the article. 06:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
If there's no benefit in having photos for further understanding, and the actors chosen to be highlighted are random, I'd suggest possibly just removing the photos altogether then. Calibrador (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reverted again, so I'll let it be. Not a surprise though that Davey2010 would revert along with an insult that wouldn't have been stated if I wasn't the person that made the change. As it stands though, hopefully your statement about "Once the article is expanded upon, especially once the season premieres, then it will remain in its current section" comes true. Calibrador (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say awful a few more times? I'm not sure I understand. Calibrador (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's alot on this site you don't seem to understand so you not understanding the whole meaning of "Awful" wouldn't surprise me in the slightest!, Go & play with ya crayons & leave this site to the grown ups!. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 07:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please leave past disturbances at the login page and remain civil during discussion? Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian 07:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I was being uncivil, but will move on. Calibrador (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You for absolutely no reason said "Can you say awful a few more times? I'm not sure I understand." .... In the nicest way of saying this that was being uncivil!, We both haven't got on at the best of times but if you were any editor I would've still disagreed with the changes made and would've reverted them..... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main Cast: Tommen Baratheon Mentioned Twice

[edit]

Why is Tommen Baratheon, played by Chapman, in the main cast twice and why can't I edit it without having the references appear below the main cast list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberman King (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been fixed. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stannis still only maybe dead

[edit]

We Our sources say the episode's director says death was the intent during the scripting of that episode. Many roads are paved with many sorts of intentions, and you can never tell where a story's going by looking at the direction one part went. Plots twist all the time, especially on this show.

Given the (deliberate?) ambiguity of Nutter's statement (unless someone's heard/read something I haven't), and the Not Quite Dead rule, I think we'd be best replacing "confirmed" with "suggested". Maybe give the whole quote and let readers decide, without clicking first.

Hot Pie, of course, is alive and well. Nothing but smooth sailing ahead for that guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went with this. It can mean both things. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Game of Thrones (season 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it?

[edit]

The lead states:

In contrast to the previous seasons, it largely consists of original content not found in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, but also adapts material from the upcoming sixth novel in the series, The Winds of Winter, as well as some content from the fourth and fifth novels, A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons.

So either it contains original book series content (which includes books four through six), or it does not. "Adaptions" borrow from it.

I should also like to mention that the source given at the end of the above mentions nothing about books four through six, if taken from this quote: "He reveals that next season both the producers and fans will be in uncharted waters. As he explains: 'Right now in season six, what we're shooting currently isn't based on anything in the book. It's fully based on discussions the writers have had with George Martin. Because the series has now surpassed the books in terms of what's available." To that end, 'the writers have been diverging off the books for the past couple of seasons, knowing full well that they have to take the story beyond the books.'" — Wyliepedia 05:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't believe everything that is written in Wikipedia articles. ;-) Anyway, the source sontains a video, perhaps there is something that justifies the lead. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what the issue is here. The lead states that "it largely consists of original content", so mostly but not completely, and what is not original content is based on the three books stated. So, the season contains both book content and original content. It's exceptionally clear. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear here, but not in the source given and, therefore, presumptive unsourced original research. — Wyliepedia 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I tried to change was just how the phrases are linked. Now I read it as: In contrast to W, it X, but also (adapts) Y, as well as Z. The fact that "Z is not in contrast to W" is not clear from ther sentence itself - it might not be clear to someone who is not familiar with the books and the series. However, my change went probably too far, assuming X=Y (which is not the case, or is it?). Anyway, if "clear here", there is no problem. Referencing is another matter - @Wyliepedia, did you watch the video? (I did not.) WikiHannibal (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiHannibal: No, I haven't watched the video, since the cite here doesn't say "watch video". I've moved on from my first half of my complaint, because I'm waiting for the fallout from "Wikipedia said it features stuff from the novels". My focus is on the second half, regarding what wasn't said in the source but yet added here. — Wyliepedia 17:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what are you getting at but I do not expect that the reference would say "watch video" even if the content actually was in the video. The link contains both text and video so personally I would not claim that it was not in the source without watching the video. Neverthelees, we may assume it is not in the video, as info about A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons had been present in the lead before the ref was added - diff. Of course the best thing would be to watch it to confirm it does not mention the two books in this context, and/or to try to find another source concerning them, and edit the lead accordingly. Or you can remove the books now, and wait to see whether someone challenges your edit or not. But if I remember correctly, we know from the trailer that, for example, "Ser Robert Strong" will be presented to Cersei, which is something that happened in A Dance. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays, so many online stories attach video that it's not reasonable to watch them all. Often even less so, when the video is just someone reading the story over stock footage. Whenever citing the video part, it's best to specify that and the time (right in the URL, when possible). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cast references

[edit]

Are we keeping references for the cast section or not? I originally removed them, but they were added back by AlexTheWhovian, which is fine and understandable. I then went ahead and did some clean-up/improvement of the references because I had figured they'll be staying in the article. But, they since have been removed by Rayukk. I was planning on cleaning up the remaining cast references so they'll all in top shape, but don't want to bother if they're just going to be deleted eventually. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted Rayukk's edits. Cast references should always be kept; I plan on reinstating them for the previous seasons as well. A good discussion to read on why is located at User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 10#Cast listings. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on making some changes to the Casting subsection, too much of it is just redundant of the main Cast section. It's completely unnecessary and redundant to state "[actor] will play [character]", especially when the actor or role isn't all that noteworthy or if the actor doesn't even has a Wikipedia article. The casting section should stick to notable actors whose casting was reported by reputable sources, such as the announcement for Ian McShane. The bottom of the Cast section also lists "Additional actors who have been cast, but are currently unknown in their role within the show", of which are several unknown actors (no Wikipedia article), some playing unnotable roles ("Bolton soldiers") and the references are just the resume for the actor, which doesn't support notability because it's a primary source for the actor.

Good idea! -rayukk | talk 07:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the season has aired, I suggest to removing the sources in the cast section, but still keep the sources in the casting section as they are relevant to the information. To have references for each cast member after the season as ended is not necessary as it is already confirmed in the episodes that they appear in the sixth season. In addition, the other season pages for Game of Thrones has not kept the references for the characters after the season had ended airing. Twotimer17 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Television WikiProject seems to be unique in the way that it deletes references without any real reason. Once something is sourced, it ought to stay so. "To have references for each cast member after the season as ended is not necessary as it is already confirmed in the episodes that they appear in" contradicts itself, since this supports the removal of source in the Cast section, but how would it then make sense to keep the sources in the casting section? I mean, it is already confirmed that they were in the season. Take a look at season articles that have been promoted to a Good Article status, and a vast majority of them keep their sources - no policy supports the mass deletion of references in any format. It is unfortunate that the past season pages were not run in that format, but I do hope to reinstate the sources on those pages eventually. Alex|The|Whovian? 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

[edit]
|Viewers         = 10.7[1]

PlayerUp (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Only televised viewers are listed, not online streaming viewers. Note how your source reports 10.3 million for 5x10, but only 8.11 million is listed. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sunday cable ratings: 'Game of Thrones' opens slightly lower, still dominant". TV by the Numbers. April 26, 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.

Episode table

[edit]

Why is season 6's episodes presented in one table instead of having their individual page like previous seasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.119.170 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season 6's episodes do have their own article? Click on the linked titles and you will be directed there. This season is presented the same as the previous seasons. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it is not the case, it might very well be an issue on my part but clicking on the titles does not get me to the individual page of the episode but of the entire season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.119.170 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely on your part. The pages are at "The Red Woman" / "Home" / "Oathbreaker" / "Book of the Stranger" / "The Door" / "Blood of My Blood" / "The Broken Man". Alex|The|Whovian? 02:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you for your answers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.119.170 (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Episodes 9 and 10 have titles now. "The Battle of the Bastards" and "The Winds of Winter" respectively. http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Season_6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.147.150.156 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Whoever did the description for Episode 8 "No One", had a minor error. The opening sentence had stated "Tommen decrees that trial by faith will be abolished and replaced by trial by the faith. I assumed it was meant to say "Tommen decrees that trial by combat will be abolished and replaced by trial by the faith", so after confirming the information on the separate article for the episode itself, I made the change. I am posting this here to inform of the repair, just case the page is being watched. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016

[edit]

{{Episode list/sublist|List of Game of Thrones episodes 

|EpisodeNumber   = 58
|EpisodeNumber2  = 8
|Title           = No One
|RTitle          = [1]

{{Episode list/sublist|List of Game of Thrones episodes 

|EpisodeNumber   = 59
|EpisodeNumber2  = 9
|Title           = Battle of the Bastards
|RTitle          = [2]

{{Episode list/sublist|List of Game of Thrones episodes 

|EpisodeNumber   = 60
|EpisodeNumber2  = 10
|Title           = The Winds of Winter
|RTitle          = [3]

Zbakri (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/game-of-thrones-season-6-episode-8-9-and-10-titles-revealed-spoilers-white-walkers-the-wall-a7054606.html}
  2. ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/game-of-thrones-season-6-episode-8-9-and-10-titles-revealed-spoilers-white-walkers-the-wall-a7054606.html}
  3. ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/game-of-thrones-season-6-episode-8-9-and-10-titles-revealed-spoilers-white-walkers-the-wall-a7054606.html}
 Not done Per multiple reverts of adding these titles - check the article history. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

[edit]

Considering season 6 is not fully aired how can we add a partial average of the ratings of episodes aired so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktx (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about? There's no average of the ratings yet. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:AlexTheWhovian: At the time I'm writing this there are 3 episodes still unaired, but this doesn't prevent the table to be updated with a (partial) average of the episodes aired so far.
That would be unsourced original research you have calculated yourself, which is not allowed. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Fates of key characters" section now redundant?

[edit]

This section is mainly speculation about whether people from season 5 would be back for season 6. Now that season 6 is over, do we sitll need it? 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, as it is all regarding the production of the season, and the plot moving forward from season to season. The same goes for the casting section. It's still relevant to how the sixth season evolved and became how it was. So to have the section with speculation just shows how the sixth season, and more specifically the season premiere dealt with the plot of major character's fate. Twotimer17 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section

[edit]

It seems as though there is some difference of opinion on what the Plot section should be. Someone (I'm not sure who, couldn't find it in the edit summaries) embedded this comment with the maintenance template:

Please don't add every detail here - this section should look like the Plot section on the Season 1 page. This section has been tagged per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#Season_plot_limit

I took a look at Game of Thrones (season 1)#Plot and while I feel it's very well written, I don't believe it actually summarizes the plot for season one. I feel that it's more Premise than Plot, doesn't seem to cover more than the first two episodes, and is the sort of non-spoilery description you might expect from promotional material. It's good in identifying (arguably) the three major plot arcs of the season, but it only tells how they begin. I can see the approach, that the author(s) are providing an introduction to the plot with more information following in the short episode summaries, but is that really what we want? Considering that the season 2-5 summaries are closer to what we have here, it seems like this approach is preferred amongst editors.
Having recently binge-watched, I rephrased and reordered the plot section a bit and got it under 420 words. I'm not sure it can get lower than that without sacrificing the smaller arcs (eg: Samwell Tarly, The Hound, events in Dorne, etc). I feel the word count is alright considering Game of Thrones is a complex show, and I'd like to remove that comment and the maintenance template as well. - Reidgreg (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that there's extended plot summaries in both the episode table and ten separate episode articles, realistically, the Plot section on this page shouldn't and doesn't even need to exist. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like it's been removed (the template and embedded comment, not the plot section as ATW suggested). Maybe if the MOS discussion the comment's writer claimed as justification actually reaches a consensus, resolution, and gets adopted into the MOS, then this may become an issue to reconsider. - Reidgreg (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
222.152.184.125 made a recent edit to the plot section (diff) which I feel is an improvement in many respects (correcting several of my earlier mistakes) but raises the word count from 418 → 457 words, which has been an issue in the past. I've gone ahead and cut a couple parts - Oleanna and Ellaria meet but do not (yet) form an alliance, and Bran discovering (or suspecting) Jon's parentage does not have an influence on the major season plot arcs - and condensed some of the rest. Word count now 426. Just trying to keep this in check before it gets tagged with a maintenance template. - Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Awards not up to date???

[edit]

Accolades For the 32nd TCA Awards, the series was nominated for Program of the Year and Outstanding Achievement in Drama.[122] For the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, the series received 23 nominations, the most of any series.[123]

Why is this still discussing nominations??? The Emmy Awards were handed out in Sept 2016. We know what the series won ... not just the nominations. Why has this never been updated? Peter K Burian (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to update it yourself, if need be. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the section in the text discussing the wins (Paragraph 2 of the lede) -- with a September citation -- but this person reverted my edit and then the text discussed only the nominations, with a citation from July. Revision as of 17:59, 26 December 2016 AffeL (talk | contribs)
I reverted that Edit so the text is up to date at least. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Game of Thrones (season 6). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Game of Thrones (season 6). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

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 15:37, 13 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) 23:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Game of Thrones (season 6)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 18:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I owe another review due to one of my nominees recently getting promoted, and this one is ... well, one I'm glad to take, though of course I would have regardless of what it was since it's spent the longest at this time waiting to get reviewed.

I will print it out, read it, do a light copyedit because I don't think articles should be failed just because of sloppy writing, and then get back in a week or so with my thoughts. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alriiiiighht ... I'm back. This took less time than I thought.

I should say that this is a subject I'm knowledgeable in, not always the case with GA reviews I do (but when you make a point of reviewing the articles that have sat in the queue the longest, that comes with the territory). I watched the show (mainly by binging it between seasons 7 and 8), and I've read the books.

So I'm happy to say that this article is most of the way to where it needs to be. Copyediting was a breeze compared to a lot of GA noms I review ... while there was a little bit of wording and phrasing that could stand to be (and was) trimmed for brevity and clarity's sake, there wasn't a lot, nowhere near as much as I usually find (the article after my c/e is only about 200 bytes shorter, which is the least shortening I've seen in a long time, and well under my 1K threshold for article fat). The writing was consistently excellent in its attention to proper grammar, punctuation and mechanics. It read mostly like the same person had written it all the way through. And the footnotes were all done to code ... there was no need to make them consistent.

The article itself has the information you would expect of it, in generally the right amount of detail. There is nothing I would want to know that I couldn't have found out about here.

So I am well-disposed toward passing it. However, as is so often the case, there are a couple of things I would like to see addressed, so I am putting it  On hold for the usual week, which should be more than enough time to do those things. I will go over them below. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... I think I can get this punch list finished before I go to bed:

  • The intro: I trimmed the second graf a bit since I thought it went into more detail than it needed to about the plot developments this season ... we just need to know that Ramsay dies, but not how, for instance; anyone interested in knowing can and will read that in the episode guide below.

    The third graf, though, is by contrast somewhat lean. We should round it out with some details about a) cast members who left the show this season (i.e., of course Iwan Rheon, Kristian Nairn, and Natalie Dormer, Jonathan Pryce, Finn Jones and the other casualties of the Green Trial in the season finale, b) cast members who returned after a season or two off like Isaac Hempstead Wright and David Bradley, and c) actors who returned even though it seemed their characters were done with the show, like Rory McCann. I'd also put Max van Sydow in as a one-off for this season along with Richard E. Grant and Ian McShane since their characters, for different reasons, do not go on into the next season.

 Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode list: Maybe we could have a graf before it (cited, of course), giving us a short recap of where we were, or at least certain characters, at the end of the previous season? The very first two episodes concern themselves in part with Melisandre's attempt, ultimately successful, to resurrect Jon. I think it would be useful to remind readers that he got murdered at the end of season 5; not everyone remembers that. Or that Sansa and Theon had just escaped Winterfell. And that Danaerys had gone missing on her dragon.
 Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast list: All the actors must be cited. Most are, but that's not good enough here, so I tagged the section. This is absolutely the most important issue for GA.
 Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production: We read near the end that actors were seen in Dubrovnik in costume, in apparent contradiction of HBO's earlier statements that for the first time in the show's run they would not be filming there. So, six years later, this begs the question ... did they film anything there nonetheless? We can and should be able to find out.
 Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DVD Extras: Per the copyvio detector, let's not describe the extras on the DVD set with pretty much the exact same wording the Winter is Coming website does (And it does not look like they're copying us there).
 Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single-sentence subsections: Per MOS:BODY: "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". I accordingly do not think that we need the subsection on "copyright infringement." Just put that sentence near the beginning of the section.
 Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's it. I also have some ideas for what we can do with the article to get it more toward FA, if that's what you're interested in doing, that I'll be sharing later. Happy editing!! Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Alright ... thanks for at least acknowledging this. I'll give you another week to at least get substantially started. If you need/want more time, let me know here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Good work so far. I recognize that completely sourcing the cast will take a while, so you have shown sufficient progress to earn another week. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. The article is a ✓ Pass Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for further improvement

[edit]

OK, now that I have passed the article for GA, here are my ideas, as promised, for what could take it to FA:

Perspective, most of all, as it is now available to us. As you can see from article statistics, and as some of the older sections on this page reflect, most of the work on the article was done during the runup to, during, and in the immediate aftermath of, the season itself. It has now been a good five years since this article was largely created ... and I could not help but notice that it still largely feels like a snapshot of that time in the show's history.

There's no reflection from D&D, the cast or anyone involved, really, on how well some of their decisions worked out, especially now that they were more or less beyond the territory the books had reached (I mean, OK, one of the plotlines for Arya came from a preview chapter of TWoW, but that's really about it). Now that we have the oral history Fire Cannot Kill a Dragon, we should read it and use it. As well as any other post-series interviews that touch on these things. I'd like to know, for instance, about ...

  • D&D's later realization and admission that the Dorne subplot, wound up in this season, was frankly the biggest mistake they made, an sentiment that even the harshest fans agree with them on. How did that affect their planning and writing for the season? When did they realize that the sooner they got Jamie and Bronn back from there, the better (and was the idea all along to kill Myrcella in the process? I think I read somewhere the actress wanted or needed out).
  • The decision to end the season with the Green Trial and kill off every other character that mattered in the Kings' Landings plots besides Cersei and Qyburn. Yes, it's something Cersei would have done, and it put her back in charge (especially when Tommen killed himself in response) when the plot needed to, something the books still haven't done ... but that's just what bothered some people about it. It's a big, convenient diabolus ex machina that, while it does set up Cersei's plotline in the last two seasons, also eliminates the need to resolve the plotlines around Margaery (IIRC, though Natalie Dormer had told them she wanted to leave), her brother (basically an artifactual character in the series after Renly's death, anyway; the books have a better way of dealing with him but they still haven't completely resolved that plot either), her father, Grand Maester Pycelle (not used as well in the series before his death as the books do, though) Lancel Lannister (not that he's in the series much) and of course the High Sparrow. Did this figure into choosing this plot development? I'd like to know, because a lot of people suspected they did this primarily to get themselves out of a plot jam (And if they did, I think it also contributed to some of the difficulties of the last season ... one of the show's strengths had been its ability, for a non-soap opera, to keep "four lines running", but I think they got so good at that they didn't sit down to think about, well, how do we write this show and these characters when we don't have the ability to so easily cut away to a scene in a completely different storyline?
  • I also think, and I'd love to know if this is true, that they at least planned it before the beginning of the season enough to foreshadow it the whole season with those occasional lingering shots of the candles in a variety of settings, at least once per episode (and then most notably in the scene where, we are to understand, Arya killed the Waif). It seems too deliberate to not have been planned.
  • Jonathan Pryce was rather disappointed that people received the High Sparrow as some sort of villain (which mystifies me, too). Enough that he doesn't remember his time on the show well, and I really wonder if D&D knew that and decided to have the Green Trial kill him off, as well.
  • And were they still, at this late date, leaving any Schrödinger's Guns in for possible reveals that they never had to do, because Martin hadn't told them the general plot of how it would end yet? There was the whole theory that the Waif had really killed Arya and that some mischief was afoot.
  • It's also said that the scene where the Hound comes upon Lord Beric and the other Brothers Without Banners hanging the bandits who killed Brother Ray and all his other followers next to a stream, where the Hound takes a leak before rejoining Beric's band, was meant to be D&D's definitive message that they would not bring Lady Stoneheart into the series, since the scene approximates how her corpse is found in the books. Is this true? Again I'd like to see if they answered this.

I also think that it would be nice to see, from the present perspective, how it is seen nowadays. C|NET recently ranked it the third best season. I'm sure there will be others. OK ... happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_of_Thrones_season_6&oldid=1216301021"