![]() | Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) is part of the Game of Thrones (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
An unregistered user continues to insist that Catelyn VII (chapter 56) of A Clash of Kings is present in this episode. I have removed this twice, and it has been removed in the past by another user. Does anyone know for sure if it is indeed included in the episode, or if it is not? It seems like it would be way to far ahead of the show to be included, which is why I removed it twice. Trut-h-urts man ( talk) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel that it's best that we use a side-by-side "before and after" image, as shown in this source. I was curious about what the edited imagery looks like, and found out what it looks like when I clicked on the reference at the end of the sentence addressing the change. One can argue that if the readers are curious enough, they do what I did (check the reference). But I didn't know that the reference would include the "after" image; I mainly clicked on the reference to see what was stated about this controversy (a controversy I didn't know about until several minutes ago; and that's from reading that part of the Wikipedia article). And not every reader is familiar with the reference system that Wikipedia uses (I mean they don't know to click on the numbers at the end of sentences for verification). Seems best to me to make the "after" image more accessible to readers by displaying a side-by-side version. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The deletion of Westeros.org and the content it supports from this and other articles has been contested here. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I added disambiguation for this page so that people have an easy link to the GRR Martin Book of the same name as the episode because "Fire and Blood" redirects to this page, and not the book. It was removed by
Radiphus. The format I used was:
{{distinguish|Fire and Blood (disambiguation)|Fire and Blood (book)}}
so the top of the page looked like this:
Can someone say why it was removed, or how to do it correctly so that it won't be removed in the future? Nothingbeforeus ( talk) 00:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
because "Fire and Blood" redirects to this page, but this was never true. Regarding WikiHannibal's addition, i have accepted it as an exception to WP:NAMB, where a more specific page title might still be ambiguous. I don't think it was necessary to bring this up again, after seven months. - Radiphus ( talk) 09:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Psantora: The image does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as it doesn't illustrate anything and the plot is too long per MOS:TVPLOT, as it's longer than 400 words. Considering this, why should the tag be removed and the image readded? -- Ted Edwards 01:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
frame is from the last few seconds of the final episode of the first season and it shows a pivotal moment in the series and episode. Not having it is detrimental to the understanding of the subjectFrom my first reply here:
this episode was specifically nominated for an Emmy for visual effects on the dragons. This is the first episode in the series where they appear and they are promently featured in the screenshot. It is very much an essential point to be shown in this article. (See the "Filming" section.)From Flyer22 Reborn's first reply here:
The image of Daenerys and Drogon, the final and arguably the most powerful scene of the episode (as stated by a number of critics), obviously increases readers' understanding of the episode. In the lead, we mention critics talking about that moment. Lower in the article, we relay their thoughts on that moment, including on the special effects. A visual aid in the lead or in the "Reception" section is fine. I prefer it in the lead. It is common for episode articles to include a lead image.This is starting to sound like WP:IDHT. - Paul T +/ C 13:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If you in the caption for this episode make note of how the picture of the dragon illustrates something relevant to production/critical details of the article, it would meet WP:NFCC#8. So, for me to support including the image, I believe the caption should be changed (and the purpose on the file description page with it) to make the link between this image and the critical reception as is done on Mhysa. I feel linking it to the Emmys is a tenuous reason to keep the image, as the award was for the visual effects of the whole episode. So if you or Flyer22 Reborn make a BOLD edit to the caption, making it similar to Mhysa, the image can be kept, as it will have definitely met WP:NFCC. -- Ted Edwards 14:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Also, as a suggestion of over images that would work and meet WP:NFCC#8, and example would be for Mother's Mercy, where an image of Cersei actually doing the walk of atonement, and demostrating the production details of using a body double etc. -- Ted Edwards 14:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing at NFCC that requires this to be included in the caption, but as I've said, non-free images must meet WP:NFCC#8, and without an appropiate caption, the screenshot appears just to be a screenshot for the sake of having a screenshot. Therefore, a caption along the lines of "The final scene, with Daenerys Targaryen and her dragon hatchlings. This scene recieved much critical acclaim." explains why the image is necessary, and links it with the critical acclaim it recieved. On this point File:Game of Thrones S01E10 - Fire and Blood.png needs it's non-free rationale updated, as two boxes are blanked, and screenshots are not needed to "indentify" episodes. -- Ted Edwards 16:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
without an appropiate caption, the screenshot appears just to be a screenshot for the sake of having a screenshotdoes not mean the image violates NFCC#8. If the FUR needs to be updated, that is a separate (but important) issue. I've updated the rationale for the image, but I'm sure it can still use some improvement.Also, I should clarify that I see you did have some prior discussion about this at WT:TV, but that was a discussion with 3 participants, hardly something that demonstrates broad acceptance. Furthermore, you seem to have
the specific screencap used is the subject of discussion from secondary sources - such as a key moment in the episode, or where there's some production aspect that the image helps explain (eg one example I consider fair is the image on Worlds Apart (Fringe) which id'd as a key moment of the episode by critics and praised in the performance, despite the image just being talking heads, at least at this article (as demonstrated by the above rationales almost directly quoting this passage without even knowing it existed). Again, it very well may be that the majority of the images need to go (and perhaps in some cases better examples can be found), but unilaterally removing >95% of them (repeatedly in some cases, including here) was not appropriate. At the very least it warranted some kind of notification at WP:ASOIAF since the mass editing was directly related to that project. - Paul T +/ C 16:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I went to a random removed image to see if its episode had similar problems as the above and found myself at " The Bear and the Maiden Fair". That image (again, the final scene of the episode) is also directly referenced in secondary sources and you still removed it:
The final scene was very well received: IGN's Matt Fowler called it "a spectacular moment", [1] HitFix's Alan Sepinwall deemed it "gorgeously staged and executed", [2] and David Sims found it "tense, thrilling television". [3]There is plenty to go on there for that image to be restored as well. - Paul T +/ C 17:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)I think that is exactly what we are suggesting TedEdwards does. - Paul T +/ C 11:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
However, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidanceand I believe that the Game of Thrones plots fit that. I believe that some of the episodes can probably be cut down to near or under 400 words (the ones that are 1000+ definitely can, they're way too long, film plots aren't even that long), but some are far too long and have too much happen to shorten them without cutting out important content. QueerFilmNerd talk 17:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
provide context, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand the other sections of the article that comment on the plot (such as "Production" or "Reception"), Wikipedia is not the place to have highly detailed plots as it's not encylopedic, hence they don't need to be long, hence the 400 word limit in the MOS. -- Ted Edwards 17:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Hi all. There is a discussion taking place on the Game of Thrones talk page regarding the removal of the Infobox images on every episode's article. Some much needed consensus is needed on this change. Please join in! Thanks!-- Templeowls17 ( talk) 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) is part of the Game of Thrones (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
An unregistered user continues to insist that Catelyn VII (chapter 56) of A Clash of Kings is present in this episode. I have removed this twice, and it has been removed in the past by another user. Does anyone know for sure if it is indeed included in the episode, or if it is not? It seems like it would be way to far ahead of the show to be included, which is why I removed it twice. Trut-h-urts man ( talk) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel that it's best that we use a side-by-side "before and after" image, as shown in this source. I was curious about what the edited imagery looks like, and found out what it looks like when I clicked on the reference at the end of the sentence addressing the change. One can argue that if the readers are curious enough, they do what I did (check the reference). But I didn't know that the reference would include the "after" image; I mainly clicked on the reference to see what was stated about this controversy (a controversy I didn't know about until several minutes ago; and that's from reading that part of the Wikipedia article). And not every reader is familiar with the reference system that Wikipedia uses (I mean they don't know to click on the numbers at the end of sentences for verification). Seems best to me to make the "after" image more accessible to readers by displaying a side-by-side version. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The deletion of Westeros.org and the content it supports from this and other articles has been contested here. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I added disambiguation for this page so that people have an easy link to the GRR Martin Book of the same name as the episode because "Fire and Blood" redirects to this page, and not the book. It was removed by
Radiphus. The format I used was:
{{distinguish|Fire and Blood (disambiguation)|Fire and Blood (book)}}
so the top of the page looked like this:
Can someone say why it was removed, or how to do it correctly so that it won't be removed in the future? Nothingbeforeus ( talk) 00:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
because "Fire and Blood" redirects to this page, but this was never true. Regarding WikiHannibal's addition, i have accepted it as an exception to WP:NAMB, where a more specific page title might still be ambiguous. I don't think it was necessary to bring this up again, after seven months. - Radiphus ( talk) 09:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Psantora: The image does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as it doesn't illustrate anything and the plot is too long per MOS:TVPLOT, as it's longer than 400 words. Considering this, why should the tag be removed and the image readded? -- Ted Edwards 01:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
frame is from the last few seconds of the final episode of the first season and it shows a pivotal moment in the series and episode. Not having it is detrimental to the understanding of the subjectFrom my first reply here:
this episode was specifically nominated for an Emmy for visual effects on the dragons. This is the first episode in the series where they appear and they are promently featured in the screenshot. It is very much an essential point to be shown in this article. (See the "Filming" section.)From Flyer22 Reborn's first reply here:
The image of Daenerys and Drogon, the final and arguably the most powerful scene of the episode (as stated by a number of critics), obviously increases readers' understanding of the episode. In the lead, we mention critics talking about that moment. Lower in the article, we relay their thoughts on that moment, including on the special effects. A visual aid in the lead or in the "Reception" section is fine. I prefer it in the lead. It is common for episode articles to include a lead image.This is starting to sound like WP:IDHT. - Paul T +/ C 13:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If you in the caption for this episode make note of how the picture of the dragon illustrates something relevant to production/critical details of the article, it would meet WP:NFCC#8. So, for me to support including the image, I believe the caption should be changed (and the purpose on the file description page with it) to make the link between this image and the critical reception as is done on Mhysa. I feel linking it to the Emmys is a tenuous reason to keep the image, as the award was for the visual effects of the whole episode. So if you or Flyer22 Reborn make a BOLD edit to the caption, making it similar to Mhysa, the image can be kept, as it will have definitely met WP:NFCC. -- Ted Edwards 14:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Also, as a suggestion of over images that would work and meet WP:NFCC#8, and example would be for Mother's Mercy, where an image of Cersei actually doing the walk of atonement, and demostrating the production details of using a body double etc. -- Ted Edwards 14:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing at NFCC that requires this to be included in the caption, but as I've said, non-free images must meet WP:NFCC#8, and without an appropiate caption, the screenshot appears just to be a screenshot for the sake of having a screenshot. Therefore, a caption along the lines of "The final scene, with Daenerys Targaryen and her dragon hatchlings. This scene recieved much critical acclaim." explains why the image is necessary, and links it with the critical acclaim it recieved. On this point File:Game of Thrones S01E10 - Fire and Blood.png needs it's non-free rationale updated, as two boxes are blanked, and screenshots are not needed to "indentify" episodes. -- Ted Edwards 16:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
without an appropiate caption, the screenshot appears just to be a screenshot for the sake of having a screenshotdoes not mean the image violates NFCC#8. If the FUR needs to be updated, that is a separate (but important) issue. I've updated the rationale for the image, but I'm sure it can still use some improvement.Also, I should clarify that I see you did have some prior discussion about this at WT:TV, but that was a discussion with 3 participants, hardly something that demonstrates broad acceptance. Furthermore, you seem to have
the specific screencap used is the subject of discussion from secondary sources - such as a key moment in the episode, or where there's some production aspect that the image helps explain (eg one example I consider fair is the image on Worlds Apart (Fringe) which id'd as a key moment of the episode by critics and praised in the performance, despite the image just being talking heads, at least at this article (as demonstrated by the above rationales almost directly quoting this passage without even knowing it existed). Again, it very well may be that the majority of the images need to go (and perhaps in some cases better examples can be found), but unilaterally removing >95% of them (repeatedly in some cases, including here) was not appropriate. At the very least it warranted some kind of notification at WP:ASOIAF since the mass editing was directly related to that project. - Paul T +/ C 16:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I went to a random removed image to see if its episode had similar problems as the above and found myself at " The Bear and the Maiden Fair". That image (again, the final scene of the episode) is also directly referenced in secondary sources and you still removed it:
The final scene was very well received: IGN's Matt Fowler called it "a spectacular moment", [1] HitFix's Alan Sepinwall deemed it "gorgeously staged and executed", [2] and David Sims found it "tense, thrilling television". [3]There is plenty to go on there for that image to be restored as well. - Paul T +/ C 17:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)I think that is exactly what we are suggesting TedEdwards does. - Paul T +/ C 11:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
However, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidanceand I believe that the Game of Thrones plots fit that. I believe that some of the episodes can probably be cut down to near or under 400 words (the ones that are 1000+ definitely can, they're way too long, film plots aren't even that long), but some are far too long and have too much happen to shorten them without cutting out important content. QueerFilmNerd talk 17:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
provide context, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand the other sections of the article that comment on the plot (such as "Production" or "Reception"), Wikipedia is not the place to have highly detailed plots as it's not encylopedic, hence they don't need to be long, hence the 400 word limit in the MOS. -- Ted Edwards 17:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Hi all. There is a discussion taking place on the Game of Thrones talk page regarding the removal of the Infobox images on every episode's article. Some much needed consensus is needed on this change. Please join in! Thanks!-- Templeowls17 ( talk) 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)