![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Disclaimer: I clicked on the daily DYK and have not / do not plan to read / watch Game of Thrones. The article almost entirely refers to the character by the nickname Ned (74 times) than the real name Eddard (9 times). If the book and the TV show also refer the character as Ned instead of Eddard, then Ned Stark is the WP:COMMONNAME and this article should be moved to Ned Stark. As an example, I bring up Ron Weasley, notice the article is not at the real name of Ronald Weasley. If Ned is not the WP:COMMONNAME, the various Neds in this article need to be replaced by Eddards. Tagging TAnthony. starship .paint ~ regal 13:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved: per discussion Ground Zero | t 18:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Eddard Stark →
Ned Stark – Ned Stark is the
WP:COMMONNAME. In the
text of the first book of Game of Thrones (where Ned appears and dies), "Eddard" is used 187 times, while " Ned " (with the spaces to discount words like happened) is used 498 times.
starship
.paint
~ regal
13:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The info box gives the nationality as 'Westerosi'. What's the citation for this?
Whilst the character is a resident within the westerosi state known as 'the Seven Kingdoms', his identity as one of the 'Northmen', a formerly independent indigenous group who are ethnically and religiously distinct from the non-indigenous conquering majority, is pretty central to his character. How are we defining nationality here? Given the setting of the novel, totally pre-modern, it seems particularly inappropriate to judge nationality on the basis of state allegiance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.193.157 ( talk • contribs) 22:40, August 23, 2014
Before adding any plot details to this article. Can we please discuss potential additions here?
A lot of work in the past few weeks has been spent bring this page up to article quality. Also please remember that this article was deleted several years ago because it got so bloated with plot details. Eric the fever ( talk) 03:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this article is definitely moving in the right direction. I like that plot is less than 30% of the length of the article and the analysis sections are very well researched. I am a bit of a stickler for readability. I propose a paragraph by paragraph discussion of what is said here just to make sure that paragraphs read smoothly and follow the general thought of the article. First up Character description
The section starts out as
No problems there, a perfect two sentence description of his character. I do propose that we shorten the statement slightly to
It would cut down a bit of the verbosity a bit
The next sentence is
Once again, nothing wrong there and the second half provides a perfect segue into his upcoming character conflicts. However, the next sentence reads
I think this statement interrupts the flow of the paragraph. The section starts a description of the honorable Ned Stark, then transitions to his conflicts, but I feel that this statement should either be folded into the first or omitted entirely in this section. I would prefer it get used somewhere though as it is a sourced paraphrase.
The next statement reads
Seeing as how we already mentioned his moral comprise, and the prior sentence already states that his boundaries are tested, I believe that this sentence should be rephrased as follows
This way, we can salvage the LATimes citation and it improves the flow of the paragraph.
I think the ending of the paragraph is perfect
Reworded as follows
The sentence as reworded still conveys the same idea as the original version, but the reworded version brings the moral choice to the forefront. It provides a good end to the paragraph. Fully reworded, this is the language I propose.
In A Game of Thrones (1996), Ned Stark is the virtuous and honorable patriarch of House Stark and the father of six children. The moral compass of the story, he is initially unwavering in his view of loyalty and honor. [1] His family name, Stark, serves as an indication of his resistance to moral compromise, but his boundaries are increasingly tested over the course of the novel. [1] Finding himself a key player in the escalating political intrigue of King's Landing, Ned struggles as his own sense of honor draws him into corrupt goings-on at court. [2] [1] Ultimately, Ned is forced to choose between the safety of his family and doing what is right. [3]
Sean Bean said of the character, "he’s a good man trying to do his best in the middle of this corruption, he’s a fish out of water, he’s used to being up north in Winterfell where people are pretty straight and pragmatic, and he comes down to a place where people are playing games and backstabbing ... he’s a principled man who tries to hold things together. This is a journey that he makes where ultimately his loyalty causes his downfall." [4]
Eric the fever ( talk) 04:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
References
So it has been a few weeks since I promised I would start fine tuning the article, and now that I have a bit of free time, here comes round 2. As a very minor note, I think that all character articles under the Song of Ice and Fire project need to follow the same template. I notice this is mostly the case, especially in articles where TAnthony has started working, but the section headings in the table of contents do have different verbiage from article to article. I think that is a relatively easy fix. Now on to the meat of the post
Development and Overview
I think there is a better sentence to begin this paragraph. My vision on this section is one that goes over the creation of the Ned Stark character and exactly how he fits into the overall story. I think this statement is best used in the middle of this section rather than the beginning. We spent the first paragraph giving a very general overview of who Ned Stark is, I think this section should get into a bit more literary nuts and bolts. Proposed beginning
I think that this is a better way to begin the paragraph, as this section starts right at the very beginning and gives the reader a firm starting point. This transitions to his trip to the capital. Next sentence would be
Unchanged, but I my hunch is that this particular sentence could use a bit of rewording. I will think over it over the week.
This addition transitions nicely into the sentence that originally was at the beginning
Quote has turned into a paraphrase, stylistic choice, but I have always preferred paraphrases to block quotes in my writing.
Next sentence is unchanged except for the last word in the sentence.
This transitions nicely into a reworded
I knew it almost from the beginning. Not the first day, but very soon. I’ve said in many interviews that I like my fiction to be unpredictable. I like there to be considerable suspense. I killed Ned in the first book and it shocked a lot of people. I killed Ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero and that, sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. [5]
Note that I have removed the NYTimes citation, I really like it, but I think we should use that one elsewhere. What do you think of the first paragraph re-write?
Complete paragraph
I knew it almost from the beginning. Not the first day, but very soon. I’ve said in many interviews that I like my fiction to be unpredictable. I like there to be considerable suspense. I killed Ned in the first book and it shocked a lot of people. I killed Ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero and that, sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. [5]
Eric the fever ( talk) 23:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
How about this for rewording
I knew it almost from the beginning. Not the first day, but very soon. I’ve said in many interviews that I like my fiction to be unpredictable. I like there to be considerable suspense. I killed Ned in the first book and it shocked a lot of people. I killed Ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero and that, sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. [5]
References
EW 109 1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Disclaimer: I clicked on the daily DYK and have not / do not plan to read / watch Game of Thrones. The article almost entirely refers to the character by the nickname Ned (74 times) than the real name Eddard (9 times). If the book and the TV show also refer the character as Ned instead of Eddard, then Ned Stark is the WP:COMMONNAME and this article should be moved to Ned Stark. As an example, I bring up Ron Weasley, notice the article is not at the real name of Ronald Weasley. If Ned is not the WP:COMMONNAME, the various Neds in this article need to be replaced by Eddards. Tagging TAnthony. starship .paint ~ regal 13:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved: per discussion Ground Zero | t 18:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Eddard Stark →
Ned Stark – Ned Stark is the
WP:COMMONNAME. In the
text of the first book of Game of Thrones (where Ned appears and dies), "Eddard" is used 187 times, while " Ned " (with the spaces to discount words like happened) is used 498 times.
starship
.paint
~ regal
13:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The info box gives the nationality as 'Westerosi'. What's the citation for this?
Whilst the character is a resident within the westerosi state known as 'the Seven Kingdoms', his identity as one of the 'Northmen', a formerly independent indigenous group who are ethnically and religiously distinct from the non-indigenous conquering majority, is pretty central to his character. How are we defining nationality here? Given the setting of the novel, totally pre-modern, it seems particularly inappropriate to judge nationality on the basis of state allegiance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.193.157 ( talk • contribs) 22:40, August 23, 2014
Before adding any plot details to this article. Can we please discuss potential additions here?
A lot of work in the past few weeks has been spent bring this page up to article quality. Also please remember that this article was deleted several years ago because it got so bloated with plot details. Eric the fever ( talk) 03:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this article is definitely moving in the right direction. I like that plot is less than 30% of the length of the article and the analysis sections are very well researched. I am a bit of a stickler for readability. I propose a paragraph by paragraph discussion of what is said here just to make sure that paragraphs read smoothly and follow the general thought of the article. First up Character description
The section starts out as
No problems there, a perfect two sentence description of his character. I do propose that we shorten the statement slightly to
It would cut down a bit of the verbosity a bit
The next sentence is
Once again, nothing wrong there and the second half provides a perfect segue into his upcoming character conflicts. However, the next sentence reads
I think this statement interrupts the flow of the paragraph. The section starts a description of the honorable Ned Stark, then transitions to his conflicts, but I feel that this statement should either be folded into the first or omitted entirely in this section. I would prefer it get used somewhere though as it is a sourced paraphrase.
The next statement reads
Seeing as how we already mentioned his moral comprise, and the prior sentence already states that his boundaries are tested, I believe that this sentence should be rephrased as follows
This way, we can salvage the LATimes citation and it improves the flow of the paragraph.
I think the ending of the paragraph is perfect
Reworded as follows
The sentence as reworded still conveys the same idea as the original version, but the reworded version brings the moral choice to the forefront. It provides a good end to the paragraph. Fully reworded, this is the language I propose.
In A Game of Thrones (1996), Ned Stark is the virtuous and honorable patriarch of House Stark and the father of six children. The moral compass of the story, he is initially unwavering in his view of loyalty and honor. [1] His family name, Stark, serves as an indication of his resistance to moral compromise, but his boundaries are increasingly tested over the course of the novel. [1] Finding himself a key player in the escalating political intrigue of King's Landing, Ned struggles as his own sense of honor draws him into corrupt goings-on at court. [2] [1] Ultimately, Ned is forced to choose between the safety of his family and doing what is right. [3]
Sean Bean said of the character, "he’s a good man trying to do his best in the middle of this corruption, he’s a fish out of water, he’s used to being up north in Winterfell where people are pretty straight and pragmatic, and he comes down to a place where people are playing games and backstabbing ... he’s a principled man who tries to hold things together. This is a journey that he makes where ultimately his loyalty causes his downfall." [4]
Eric the fever ( talk) 04:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
References
So it has been a few weeks since I promised I would start fine tuning the article, and now that I have a bit of free time, here comes round 2. As a very minor note, I think that all character articles under the Song of Ice and Fire project need to follow the same template. I notice this is mostly the case, especially in articles where TAnthony has started working, but the section headings in the table of contents do have different verbiage from article to article. I think that is a relatively easy fix. Now on to the meat of the post
Development and Overview
I think there is a better sentence to begin this paragraph. My vision on this section is one that goes over the creation of the Ned Stark character and exactly how he fits into the overall story. I think this statement is best used in the middle of this section rather than the beginning. We spent the first paragraph giving a very general overview of who Ned Stark is, I think this section should get into a bit more literary nuts and bolts. Proposed beginning
I think that this is a better way to begin the paragraph, as this section starts right at the very beginning and gives the reader a firm starting point. This transitions to his trip to the capital. Next sentence would be
Unchanged, but I my hunch is that this particular sentence could use a bit of rewording. I will think over it over the week.
This addition transitions nicely into the sentence that originally was at the beginning
Quote has turned into a paraphrase, stylistic choice, but I have always preferred paraphrases to block quotes in my writing.
Next sentence is unchanged except for the last word in the sentence.
This transitions nicely into a reworded
I knew it almost from the beginning. Not the first day, but very soon. I’ve said in many interviews that I like my fiction to be unpredictable. I like there to be considerable suspense. I killed Ned in the first book and it shocked a lot of people. I killed Ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero and that, sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. [5]
Note that I have removed the NYTimes citation, I really like it, but I think we should use that one elsewhere. What do you think of the first paragraph re-write?
Complete paragraph
I knew it almost from the beginning. Not the first day, but very soon. I’ve said in many interviews that I like my fiction to be unpredictable. I like there to be considerable suspense. I killed Ned in the first book and it shocked a lot of people. I killed Ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero and that, sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. [5]
Eric the fever ( talk) 23:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
How about this for rewording
I knew it almost from the beginning. Not the first day, but very soon. I’ve said in many interviews that I like my fiction to be unpredictable. I like there to be considerable suspense. I killed Ned in the first book and it shocked a lot of people. I killed Ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero and that, sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. [5]
References
EW 109 1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).