This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Dragon and the Wolf article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | The Dragon and the Wolf 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. Review: April 8, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pretty much everyone in the list who is bluelinked has appeared in multiple episodes, and would be classified by almost any sane analyst as a member of the regular cast. This is the exact opposite of how the term is defined in our guest appearance article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't even think about changing it just because you want to put your own imprint on these articlesis beyond me. I never said I intended to do anything of the sort.
@
Calibrador: The section as you wrote it is an unverified (and ungrammatical) mess. I hadn't actually read the IGN source when I made
this edit, but when I did I found that the source actually said the opposite of what you claimed: Back at the top of the season, I wondered if the "Horn of Winter" might finally get introduced (a book element that never made it to the screen), but Weiss and Benioff found their own way around it with the debut of a death-breathing wight dragon.
I am not a fan of how most of these "critical reception" sections are quote farms, but if Wikipedia editors are unable to paraphrase them accurately, then direct quotations are better. But generally speaking, Wikipedia editors should be able to paraphrase accurately. Otherwise they run the risk of COPYVIO everytime they don't use quotation marks around literally everything.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Somethingwickedly: Could you explain this? I gave a detailed rationale for my edit six minutes earlier, and you just reverted it without an edit summary. Was it just revenge for you not liking what I wrote about "guest appearances" a few sections up from here? I'm grasping at straws here -- the other explanations are worse. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
So it's important to note that turning Viserion into a White Walker or wight dragon did not, in fact, change the type of dragon he is, despite the icy color of his flames.which would seem to go against SW's "pretty big difference" idea -- a dragon is a dragon is a dragon, and this one isn't even a different "kind" of dragon to what it was previously. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Although [Viserion's] true color is cream he is often referred to as the white dragon., but in the show the dragon really doesn't look all that white anyway. Writing something that in speech would sound identical to something else that would be much more intuitive and wrong is arguably worse than simply writing something that is wrong. Half our readers who only scan the page would misread it. (Actually, I don't think anyone could possibly be bothered reading these plot summaries except us editors anyway, which is one of the reasons I honestly think all the GOT FAs/GAs should probably be reassessed, but that's a matter for another day...) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Reading like a cheesy punwould come under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not really qualify it to be omitted, and additionally I'd say that's more a case for you, not the majority of users due to your apparent Japanease background. The Wight article was mentioned because there are in fact multiple other texts that have used it in a zombie sense dating back to 1869, hence my stating, it's not purely in-universe. Whilst sure you've proved there is some contension from sources, I feel listing as just dragon has a meaning further from getting Other or Wight mixed up for the inexperienced reader. But yes, I guess unless I have magically convinced you, stating the name (not ice dragon either) would be best. — IVORK Discuss 01:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones) article also refers to the death specifically as Viserion being reanimated into a wight. I do think this is the best wording and if for some reason we are wrong and the dragon was still partially alive while submerged and made into an "Other", I'm sure we can rectify that when it comes to light officially. Although there are articles discussing this point, the overwhelming majority refer to Viserion as a Wight Dragon. Per above, I still feel it'd be better to stick to the referenced name. Zombies traditionally aren't controlled by an entity other than rage/hunger and I feel this is enough of a difference to differentiate the two. — IVORK Discuss 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"Jon Sand" is not an important detail, as we are immediately told that Jon "wasn't actually a bastard" because Sam read a random book by someone claiming to be "High Septon Maynard" (a book, mind you, whose pages were rotting after 20 or maybe 30 years...), and it actually doesn't make sense since bastards can take the names of the regions they were raised in. Obara Sand was born in the Reach and spent her first decade or so there, but she isn't called Obara Flowers. So Bran is wrong to assert that his name would be Jon Sand, and we don't even need to note that here since it's not an important plot detail, and the plot summary is already too long. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words.. Since this was essentially a feature-length episode (although one that was criticized for its slow pace...), one might want to cite WP:FILMPLOT instead, which says
Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.Even if we took this 75-minute-or-so season finale as an IAR situation and decided to double the 400 words allowed for a normal TV episode, we'd still be 61 words above the quota. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I feel like this deserves mention. I haven't seen a single review/recap that wasn't critical of this. I think we can go without the speculation that they reused the wig for budget reasons, but still, like the Winterfell plot throughout the season, since the reception is almost universally negative it probably merits being pointed out. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
speculation that they reused the wig for budget reasons? Because I don't think that belongs; I was only talking about saying something like
The appearance of Rhaegar Targaryen was poorly received by critics, who pointed to his awkward resemblance to Harry Lloyd's Viserys Targaryen from the first season.Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be includedwhich is why I was saying the should have some experience in the field. I support you idea about mentioing the similarity but the word awkward might not be the best to use unless it is the exact word used by the sources. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The most important line of Kain's episode recap in Forbes is probably I maintain that the events leading up to this very cool finale were all preposterous and poorly executed.
So why does Wikipedia claim that several of the episodes received widespread acclaim? We need to stop using the Tomatometer for TV episodes. None of these "reviews" are "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" affairs, because that would be ridiculous and stupid. They are all written by long-time fans of the show, who are not going to stop watching, or encourage their readers to stop watching, after investing 60+ hours just because this or that episode was sub-par. RT is therefore not a reliable source for the critical consensus, and we should not be using it.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
21:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing about the production in the article, unlike previous episodes. Is someone going to write about it? 2600:1700:CE00:F060:CC8A:6250:EA4E:207D ( talk) 02:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Given how popular the series is, is very likely there will be appropriate sources someday—books will be published on it, no doubt. The episode just came out, and at Wikipedia there is WP:NODEADLINE.
The director was wrong to say "which was really unexpected. It's not the perceived history." The "Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love" is the first version of events we are told about in the books; "Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna" is a secondary version. I don't think we should quote a demonstrably incorrect assessment from a primary source involved in the production unless we can nuance it with reliable secondary sources that contradict him on this point. We do have (supposedly) reliable sources that point out that his deliberate decision to make Rhaegar look Viserys was a poor decision cited further down the article, but has anyone seen any reviews by people other than Preston Jacobs that pointed out how framing it as a "surprise" was nonsense? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I see that Calibrador removed Hijiri88's "long plot" tag without editing the plot summary for length. Despite the fact that I agree with Calibrador that the current length of the plot section is appropriate, I don't think his method of removing the maintenance tag was proper. He should have sought consensus on the talk page, and I think we still need to do that--i.e., treat the issue as if the tag were still in place. The current length is 554 words. WP:TVPLOT limits episode summaries to 400 words, but Hijiri88 previously acknowledged that the film plot limit of up to 700 words might be more appropriate for this "essentially feature-length episode," and I agree. I believe that the current plot summary is reasonable in its level of detail and its length, considering the scope and variety of events in the episode, and the episode's running time. If Hijiri88 is dissatisfied with the current length, I think this is more of a WP:SOFIXIT situation; he should edit the section to reduce length and detail, while retaining the summary's relevance to plot, character, and theme. But that Hijiri88 sees room for improvement is not sufficient for the article to bear a maintenance tag that suggests an inherent problem with the content as it stands. -- DavidK93 ( talk) 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
stop adding templates to the page for the sake of adding templates, but I've learned to anticipate and work with it.
Euron admits he is "terrified" and leaves to take refuge in the Iron Islands.,
She details his crimes, including murdering Lysa and Jon Arryn and betraying Ned; Bran corroborates the latter.and
Beric and Tormund patrol the Wall.serve no purpose to summarizing the plot of the episode (at least as written), and are apparently only there to name-drop various (minor) characters who have fans who would want their favourite character to be namedropped. The first is actually wrong as the episode itself presents it, and if I didn't think the sentence should be cut altogether I would change "admits" to "says" or "claims", and the second, while important enough in its main point, is overwritten and draws attention to several plot holes with its unnecessary detail (Bran shouldn't need to corroborate the latter, as here were dozens of witnesses including Cersei, who all but admits to Jon in this episode that the whole "Ned was a lying power-grabber plotting to usurp the throne" thing was a lie, and Royce's being okay with Sansa having previously lied to him to cover up Lysa's murder is almost laughable).
Various characters arrive in King's Landing to discuss an armistice in light of the zombie threat in the North.Yes, it's obvious from how the episode was written that the producers wanted viewers to care about TEH TARGERYN DRAGAONGPIT OMGOGMOMG (which is what
the Dragonpit, an amphitheatre built to house the Targaryen dragonsamounts to in our plot summary), because they had Missandei being impressed by it (despite the serious plot hole that introduced that she oversaw Daenerys's dragons being put in a Dragonpit for a reason that she seems to have forgotten) and all, but all that is just WP:OR and if it can be attributed to a reliable source it belongs in a sourced analysis section, not the plot summary.
Littlefinger specifically claimed that Sansa had no proof, but that is actually in agreement with my statement above that including these details draws attention to the massive plot holes, as Littlefinger claiming that is one such plot hole.
Bran's failure to inform Sansa and Arya of Littlefinger's machinations had been called out in reviews and other articles about the show, so that the show's specific addressing of that issue was more notable than it might otherwise have beenis even worse -- you can't write you PRIMARY-sourced plot summary on Wikipedia to address concerns raised by third-party critics about the show, or directly interpret the plot of the show as being a response by the writers to said critics. If you can find a secondary source that makes this claim, include it in a sourced "analysis" section, not the plot summary. The only two critics I followed consistently (Preston Jacobs and RedTeamReview) both thought that what happened in this episode was an even bigger copout than not having Bran explain to his sisters about Littlefinger earlier, and, heck, Sansa bringing up all that stuff she already knew about made Bran's testimony irrelevant.
To be honest, I sometimes find it difficult to respond to your arguments because you posit very specific reasons that you believe editors had for adding certain content, and in every case I can recall where it involved content I created, your claims didn't resemble thoughts I had at any point while authoring the text.I'm sorry you feel that way, but frankly the actual motivations behind your edits are irrelevant, and what actually matters is how it looks to readers, and that's all I've been saying thoughout. An "all-caps fanboy spasm" is how it looks when a Wikipedia plot summary of a single installment of an episodic television series (which was actually fairly light on plot, IWBH) runs between two and three times the standard length of such summaries with all sorts of excessive detail on points only die-hard fans care about, oftentimes points that aren't elaborated in the works themselves. We are supposed to give a bare-bones summary of the plot, not a comprehensive listing of everything that happens in the work. The allowance that plot summaries not cite secondary sources assumes this, but even with secondary sources this level of detail would be unacceptable for where it is in the article. Honestly, I wish we weren't allowed write our own summaries of the works in question, as you'd be hard pressed to find a secondary source that advertaises itself as providing a "plot summary" and gave this level of detail. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I reject your claim that, as the person who added a maintenance tag, you do not hold the view that "the article should contain a maintenance tag." You do not need talk page consensus to include a maintenance tag, but in this case I believe that it was inappropriate for you to add a maintenance tag that contradicted an existing consensus.is a really outrageous thing to write on a talk page -- no one ever thinks an article would be improved by having a maintenance tag; what I want is for the issues raised by the maintenance tag to be addressed and the tag to be removed accordingly. Anyway, as I said above I've grown tired of this merry-go-round; there are more important articles that deserve my attention. Contact me again if someone copy-pastes the entire plot summary from some outside source and then submits the article for GA review; short of that, I would prefer if you did not ping me again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Twice today, ISP users (two different ones, each with this as their only edit ever) have changed the description of Jon and Daenerys from "have sex" to "make love," which WP:EUPHEMISM explicitly cites as a construction to avoid. I've already reverted this change twice today; I'm not sure if these changes rise to the level of vandalism that exempt it from WP:3RR, so I wanted to mention it here so we can have more eyes on that passage. (I was very tempted to title this section, "Jon and Daenerys sittin' in a tree.") -- DavidK93 ( talk) 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contribs) 21:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @
The Optimistic One: I'm venturing outside of my hurricane bubble to help out with the GAN backlog.
Good otherwise. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 21:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Dragon and the Wolf article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | The Dragon and the Wolf 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. Review: April 8, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pretty much everyone in the list who is bluelinked has appeared in multiple episodes, and would be classified by almost any sane analyst as a member of the regular cast. This is the exact opposite of how the term is defined in our guest appearance article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't even think about changing it just because you want to put your own imprint on these articlesis beyond me. I never said I intended to do anything of the sort.
@
Calibrador: The section as you wrote it is an unverified (and ungrammatical) mess. I hadn't actually read the IGN source when I made
this edit, but when I did I found that the source actually said the opposite of what you claimed: Back at the top of the season, I wondered if the "Horn of Winter" might finally get introduced (a book element that never made it to the screen), but Weiss and Benioff found their own way around it with the debut of a death-breathing wight dragon.
I am not a fan of how most of these "critical reception" sections are quote farms, but if Wikipedia editors are unable to paraphrase them accurately, then direct quotations are better. But generally speaking, Wikipedia editors should be able to paraphrase accurately. Otherwise they run the risk of COPYVIO everytime they don't use quotation marks around literally everything.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Somethingwickedly: Could you explain this? I gave a detailed rationale for my edit six minutes earlier, and you just reverted it without an edit summary. Was it just revenge for you not liking what I wrote about "guest appearances" a few sections up from here? I'm grasping at straws here -- the other explanations are worse. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
So it's important to note that turning Viserion into a White Walker or wight dragon did not, in fact, change the type of dragon he is, despite the icy color of his flames.which would seem to go against SW's "pretty big difference" idea -- a dragon is a dragon is a dragon, and this one isn't even a different "kind" of dragon to what it was previously. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Although [Viserion's] true color is cream he is often referred to as the white dragon., but in the show the dragon really doesn't look all that white anyway. Writing something that in speech would sound identical to something else that would be much more intuitive and wrong is arguably worse than simply writing something that is wrong. Half our readers who only scan the page would misread it. (Actually, I don't think anyone could possibly be bothered reading these plot summaries except us editors anyway, which is one of the reasons I honestly think all the GOT FAs/GAs should probably be reassessed, but that's a matter for another day...) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Reading like a cheesy punwould come under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not really qualify it to be omitted, and additionally I'd say that's more a case for you, not the majority of users due to your apparent Japanease background. The Wight article was mentioned because there are in fact multiple other texts that have used it in a zombie sense dating back to 1869, hence my stating, it's not purely in-universe. Whilst sure you've proved there is some contension from sources, I feel listing as just dragon has a meaning further from getting Other or Wight mixed up for the inexperienced reader. But yes, I guess unless I have magically convinced you, stating the name (not ice dragon either) would be best. — IVORK Discuss 01:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones) article also refers to the death specifically as Viserion being reanimated into a wight. I do think this is the best wording and if for some reason we are wrong and the dragon was still partially alive while submerged and made into an "Other", I'm sure we can rectify that when it comes to light officially. Although there are articles discussing this point, the overwhelming majority refer to Viserion as a Wight Dragon. Per above, I still feel it'd be better to stick to the referenced name. Zombies traditionally aren't controlled by an entity other than rage/hunger and I feel this is enough of a difference to differentiate the two. — IVORK Discuss 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"Jon Sand" is not an important detail, as we are immediately told that Jon "wasn't actually a bastard" because Sam read a random book by someone claiming to be "High Septon Maynard" (a book, mind you, whose pages were rotting after 20 or maybe 30 years...), and it actually doesn't make sense since bastards can take the names of the regions they were raised in. Obara Sand was born in the Reach and spent her first decade or so there, but she isn't called Obara Flowers. So Bran is wrong to assert that his name would be Jon Sand, and we don't even need to note that here since it's not an important plot detail, and the plot summary is already too long. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words.. Since this was essentially a feature-length episode (although one that was criticized for its slow pace...), one might want to cite WP:FILMPLOT instead, which says
Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.Even if we took this 75-minute-or-so season finale as an IAR situation and decided to double the 400 words allowed for a normal TV episode, we'd still be 61 words above the quota. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I feel like this deserves mention. I haven't seen a single review/recap that wasn't critical of this. I think we can go without the speculation that they reused the wig for budget reasons, but still, like the Winterfell plot throughout the season, since the reception is almost universally negative it probably merits being pointed out. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
speculation that they reused the wig for budget reasons? Because I don't think that belongs; I was only talking about saying something like
The appearance of Rhaegar Targaryen was poorly received by critics, who pointed to his awkward resemblance to Harry Lloyd's Viserys Targaryen from the first season.Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be includedwhich is why I was saying the should have some experience in the field. I support you idea about mentioing the similarity but the word awkward might not be the best to use unless it is the exact word used by the sources. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The most important line of Kain's episode recap in Forbes is probably I maintain that the events leading up to this very cool finale were all preposterous and poorly executed.
So why does Wikipedia claim that several of the episodes received widespread acclaim? We need to stop using the Tomatometer for TV episodes. None of these "reviews" are "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" affairs, because that would be ridiculous and stupid. They are all written by long-time fans of the show, who are not going to stop watching, or encourage their readers to stop watching, after investing 60+ hours just because this or that episode was sub-par. RT is therefore not a reliable source for the critical consensus, and we should not be using it.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
21:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing about the production in the article, unlike previous episodes. Is someone going to write about it? 2600:1700:CE00:F060:CC8A:6250:EA4E:207D ( talk) 02:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Given how popular the series is, is very likely there will be appropriate sources someday—books will be published on it, no doubt. The episode just came out, and at Wikipedia there is WP:NODEADLINE.
The director was wrong to say "which was really unexpected. It's not the perceived history." The "Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love" is the first version of events we are told about in the books; "Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna" is a secondary version. I don't think we should quote a demonstrably incorrect assessment from a primary source involved in the production unless we can nuance it with reliable secondary sources that contradict him on this point. We do have (supposedly) reliable sources that point out that his deliberate decision to make Rhaegar look Viserys was a poor decision cited further down the article, but has anyone seen any reviews by people other than Preston Jacobs that pointed out how framing it as a "surprise" was nonsense? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I see that Calibrador removed Hijiri88's "long plot" tag without editing the plot summary for length. Despite the fact that I agree with Calibrador that the current length of the plot section is appropriate, I don't think his method of removing the maintenance tag was proper. He should have sought consensus on the talk page, and I think we still need to do that--i.e., treat the issue as if the tag were still in place. The current length is 554 words. WP:TVPLOT limits episode summaries to 400 words, but Hijiri88 previously acknowledged that the film plot limit of up to 700 words might be more appropriate for this "essentially feature-length episode," and I agree. I believe that the current plot summary is reasonable in its level of detail and its length, considering the scope and variety of events in the episode, and the episode's running time. If Hijiri88 is dissatisfied with the current length, I think this is more of a WP:SOFIXIT situation; he should edit the section to reduce length and detail, while retaining the summary's relevance to plot, character, and theme. But that Hijiri88 sees room for improvement is not sufficient for the article to bear a maintenance tag that suggests an inherent problem with the content as it stands. -- DavidK93 ( talk) 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
stop adding templates to the page for the sake of adding templates, but I've learned to anticipate and work with it.
Euron admits he is "terrified" and leaves to take refuge in the Iron Islands.,
She details his crimes, including murdering Lysa and Jon Arryn and betraying Ned; Bran corroborates the latter.and
Beric and Tormund patrol the Wall.serve no purpose to summarizing the plot of the episode (at least as written), and are apparently only there to name-drop various (minor) characters who have fans who would want their favourite character to be namedropped. The first is actually wrong as the episode itself presents it, and if I didn't think the sentence should be cut altogether I would change "admits" to "says" or "claims", and the second, while important enough in its main point, is overwritten and draws attention to several plot holes with its unnecessary detail (Bran shouldn't need to corroborate the latter, as here were dozens of witnesses including Cersei, who all but admits to Jon in this episode that the whole "Ned was a lying power-grabber plotting to usurp the throne" thing was a lie, and Royce's being okay with Sansa having previously lied to him to cover up Lysa's murder is almost laughable).
Various characters arrive in King's Landing to discuss an armistice in light of the zombie threat in the North.Yes, it's obvious from how the episode was written that the producers wanted viewers to care about TEH TARGERYN DRAGAONGPIT OMGOGMOMG (which is what
the Dragonpit, an amphitheatre built to house the Targaryen dragonsamounts to in our plot summary), because they had Missandei being impressed by it (despite the serious plot hole that introduced that she oversaw Daenerys's dragons being put in a Dragonpit for a reason that she seems to have forgotten) and all, but all that is just WP:OR and if it can be attributed to a reliable source it belongs in a sourced analysis section, not the plot summary.
Littlefinger specifically claimed that Sansa had no proof, but that is actually in agreement with my statement above that including these details draws attention to the massive plot holes, as Littlefinger claiming that is one such plot hole.
Bran's failure to inform Sansa and Arya of Littlefinger's machinations had been called out in reviews and other articles about the show, so that the show's specific addressing of that issue was more notable than it might otherwise have beenis even worse -- you can't write you PRIMARY-sourced plot summary on Wikipedia to address concerns raised by third-party critics about the show, or directly interpret the plot of the show as being a response by the writers to said critics. If you can find a secondary source that makes this claim, include it in a sourced "analysis" section, not the plot summary. The only two critics I followed consistently (Preston Jacobs and RedTeamReview) both thought that what happened in this episode was an even bigger copout than not having Bran explain to his sisters about Littlefinger earlier, and, heck, Sansa bringing up all that stuff she already knew about made Bran's testimony irrelevant.
To be honest, I sometimes find it difficult to respond to your arguments because you posit very specific reasons that you believe editors had for adding certain content, and in every case I can recall where it involved content I created, your claims didn't resemble thoughts I had at any point while authoring the text.I'm sorry you feel that way, but frankly the actual motivations behind your edits are irrelevant, and what actually matters is how it looks to readers, and that's all I've been saying thoughout. An "all-caps fanboy spasm" is how it looks when a Wikipedia plot summary of a single installment of an episodic television series (which was actually fairly light on plot, IWBH) runs between two and three times the standard length of such summaries with all sorts of excessive detail on points only die-hard fans care about, oftentimes points that aren't elaborated in the works themselves. We are supposed to give a bare-bones summary of the plot, not a comprehensive listing of everything that happens in the work. The allowance that plot summaries not cite secondary sources assumes this, but even with secondary sources this level of detail would be unacceptable for where it is in the article. Honestly, I wish we weren't allowed write our own summaries of the works in question, as you'd be hard pressed to find a secondary source that advertaises itself as providing a "plot summary" and gave this level of detail. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I reject your claim that, as the person who added a maintenance tag, you do not hold the view that "the article should contain a maintenance tag." You do not need talk page consensus to include a maintenance tag, but in this case I believe that it was inappropriate for you to add a maintenance tag that contradicted an existing consensus.is a really outrageous thing to write on a talk page -- no one ever thinks an article would be improved by having a maintenance tag; what I want is for the issues raised by the maintenance tag to be addressed and the tag to be removed accordingly. Anyway, as I said above I've grown tired of this merry-go-round; there are more important articles that deserve my attention. Contact me again if someone copy-pastes the entire plot summary from some outside source and then submits the article for GA review; short of that, I would prefer if you did not ping me again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Twice today, ISP users (two different ones, each with this as their only edit ever) have changed the description of Jon and Daenerys from "have sex" to "make love," which WP:EUPHEMISM explicitly cites as a construction to avoid. I've already reverted this change twice today; I'm not sure if these changes rise to the level of vandalism that exempt it from WP:3RR, so I wanted to mention it here so we can have more eyes on that passage. (I was very tempted to title this section, "Jon and Daenerys sittin' in a tree.") -- DavidK93 ( talk) 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contribs) 21:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @
The Optimistic One: I'm venturing outside of my hurricane bubble to help out with the GAN backlog.
Good otherwise. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 21:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)