Smeagol 17 (talk | contribs) |
Zuko Halliwell (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
:::::This is strange for me. I have only visited this page FOR the table, and I do not agree this is 'one user' - in fact, the way this reads, it's more as though one person has decided this is not what the 'average reader' is interested in (not necessarily true - just how this conversation reads), but I would not be surprised to find that it is actually the foremost reason the page is visited. I tend to find the article about the sequence is pointless and doesn't hold any value without it. I think the argument for removing the credited actors names is perhaps strong, given it doesn't represent the full episode count for many of them. But I don't think the argument for removing the location table is. What I don't understand from a policy perspective is why well-formated reference information is to be abandoned in favour of words. What is the actual policy basis for removal? |
:::::This is strange for me. I have only visited this page FOR the table, and I do not agree this is 'one user' - in fact, the way this reads, it's more as though one person has decided this is not what the 'average reader' is interested in (not necessarily true - just how this conversation reads), but I would not be surprised to find that it is actually the foremost reason the page is visited. I tend to find the article about the sequence is pointless and doesn't hold any value without it. I think the argument for removing the credited actors names is perhaps strong, given it doesn't represent the full episode count for many of them. But I don't think the argument for removing the location table is. What I don't understand from a policy perspective is why well-formated reference information is to be abandoned in favour of words. What is the actual policy basis for removal? |
||
::::::I am for retaining the table. It is the most informative part of the article. [[User:Smeagol 17|Smeagol 17]] ([[User talk:Smeagol 17|talk]]) 13:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
::::::I am for retaining the table. It is the most informative part of the article. [[User:Smeagol 17|Smeagol 17]] ([[User talk:Smeagol 17|talk]]) 13:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
I know I'm late, but I'd like to add my opinion into the mix. I think the table should be kept in. It's my personal opinion that, without the table, the whole article becomes pointless. [[User:Zuko Halliwell|Zuko Halliwell]] ([[User talk:Zuko Halliwell|talk]]) 19:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:25, 14 May 2019
A Song of Ice and Fire C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Television C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
material moved from "World of A Song of Ice and Fire"
The following is way too detailed for the article in which it previously appeared so I'm moving it here in case anyone wants to incorporate it into this article.
Two years before the TV show aired, the network contacted film editor Angus Wall to figure out ways to use maps in each episode, similar to how the legend or map at the front of fantasy books work. Since repeatedly showing maps during each episode could not be made to work, the idea of maps was moved to the opening title sequence.[S 1] To differ from the standard tropes for fantasy maps, Wall's company 'Elastic' came up with the idea of a world inside a sphere where a computer-illusion camera pans from kingdom to kingdom.[S 2] Elastic took an existing map of Westeros and a hand-drawn map of Essos, both by George R. R. Martin, and played with their scale in Photoshop until the continents lined up perfectly.[S 1] Intending to stay as true to the books as possible, the actual dimensions, the locations and their placement, and the different terrains are all based strictly on Martin's maps.[S 1] Martin, who did not see the sequence until the premiere, endorsed the title sequence.[S 1] The HBO Viewer Guide also released a "known world" map for season 2 of the TV adaptation,[S 3] which the virtual camera of the opening titles shows first in the season 2 episode "Garden of Bones" with a pan from Westeros to the city of Qarth.
--TyrS 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 21 February 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved (AFD-tagged instead) Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Game of Thrones title sequence → gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Title_sequence – I love this show, but beyond the level of detail that is already given at Game_of_Thrones#Title_sequence, I doubt this is notable outside Game of Thrones fandom. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are you actually requesting a page move? It sounds more like you are either proposing a merge back to Game of Thrones#Title sequence, or proposing it be deleted here on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Practically, it's a merge of whatever content isn't already found at the wikia page. I didn't find a specific template for such a merge to an external site. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree an AFD is more appropriate here, so I've now tagged it as such. I'm closing this move request. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Should the table be left in?
I am starting a discussion to prevent an edit war. An IP believes, for reasons I hope they will explain here and have explained in edit summaries, that the table showing how many episodes locations or cast members appeared in the title sequence for each season should be left in the article. I disagree, as I believe such tables are trivial and do not serve an encylopedic purpose; it's not important how many times certains locations have appeared to the average reader. --TedEdwards 01:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I believe the Game of Thrones Title Sequence table that lists the elements should remain on the Game of Thrones Title Sequence wikipedia page for several reasons. First off, the title sequence for the show is itself unique. The constantly evolving opening credits that display new locations every couple of episodes result in a complex variety of different opening sequences. Thus this differentiates this title sequence from others. Cast members only appear in the sequence when they appear in the episode, which is also relatively uncommon in shows. Thus, this information serves to show not only the slew of different locations that appear in specific amounts of title sequences throughout the show but also the extent of the ensemble of the show and how many episodes each character appears in each season. Thus, this provides a statistical data base of the entire history and contents of the title sequence. Some may consider it trivial, but I believe it to be relevant information in presenting the many different variations of the title sequence throughout the show's history as well as the show's extensive cast and ensemble. Additionally, I've used this list as a reference since Season 5 and continued to use it in every succeeding season. I have noticed that the title sequence table has recently gone on and off, however it has existed for several years and is a important part of the page for people, like me, that do research into the stastics of the show. I'm willing to discuss further points in relation to this topic. Also I'm the IP address referred to above. 70.95.144.198 (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- The first point you make, about the uniqueness of title sequence, does not require a table to illustrate how it works; it can be done (and is done) in just words. About the actors, this isn't the article to illustrate such infomation, nor is any really as we only tend to list total numbers of episodes on each actors' Wikipedia article. It could also be slightly misleading as actors such as Gwendoline Christie and Michael McElhatton didn't star until later seasons, so many of the episodes they appeared in aren't here, so it could seem that they appeared in fewer episodes than they did. The infomation about how many times a location appeared is very trivial, and only for fans really. The place for this sort of thing would be (and is) at here on fandom.com, so that's where you can find the information. I'll ping Drmies, as they thanked me for removing the tables, so I wanted to know exactly why, and see if the reasoning can add to the discussion. --TedEdwards 23:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do agree with the removal, and continue to do so. And I do believe it is fandom, because the underlying premise here is that the information is worth inserting because the show (or the sequence itself, to some extent--which I already find exaggerated) is notable. That this sequence is so unique that all the minutia are to be documented is not a given; indeed, it is original research. The problem for me isn't that OR would make this unreliable--I am sure the fans are watching carefully with pencil and paper--but that there are no secondary sources that warrant this level of detail, never mind that such tables are hard to see on a mobile device or difficult to edit. What I hear from the IP is "I think it's important" and "I find it useful", neither of which are policy-based, let alone strong arguments. Thank you, TedEdwards. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- The first point you make, about the uniqueness of title sequence, does not require a table to illustrate how it works; it can be done (and is done) in just words. About the actors, this isn't the article to illustrate such infomation, nor is any really as we only tend to list total numbers of episodes on each actors' Wikipedia article. It could also be slightly misleading as actors such as Gwendoline Christie and Michael McElhatton didn't star until later seasons, so many of the episodes they appeared in aren't here, so it could seem that they appeared in fewer episodes than they did. The infomation about how many times a location appeared is very trivial, and only for fans really. The place for this sort of thing would be (and is) at here on fandom.com, so that's where you can find the information. I'll ping Drmies, as they thanked me for removing the tables, so I wanted to know exactly why, and see if the reasoning can add to the discussion. --TedEdwards 23:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Both of you made fair points in the situation. However, I don't see the harm in merely retaining the page for the next week and a half until the show ends. At that point, I wouldn't see the need in the table and would not protest removal. Nonetheless, having the table for the last week and a half would be helpful as merely a reserach tool for the show (which could be considered policy). If the table remains after the show concludes or it doesn't wouldn't matter as much. Thank you. 70.95.144.198 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we can't make changes based on the wishes of one reader. I will therefore remove the table, but you can find similar tables at [1]. --TedEdwards 21:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is strange for me. I have only visited this page FOR the table, and I do not agree this is 'one user' - in fact, the way this reads, it's more as though one person has decided this is not what the 'average reader' is interested in (not necessarily true - just how this conversation reads), but I would not be surprised to find that it is actually the foremost reason the page is visited. I tend to find the article about the sequence is pointless and doesn't hold any value without it. I think the argument for removing the credited actors names is perhaps strong, given it doesn't represent the full episode count for many of them. But I don't think the argument for removing the location table is. What I don't understand from a policy perspective is why well-formated reference information is to be abandoned in favour of words. What is the actual policy basis for removal?
- I am for retaining the table. It is the most informative part of the article. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is strange for me. I have only visited this page FOR the table, and I do not agree this is 'one user' - in fact, the way this reads, it's more as though one person has decided this is not what the 'average reader' is interested in (not necessarily true - just how this conversation reads), but I would not be surprised to find that it is actually the foremost reason the page is visited. I tend to find the article about the sequence is pointless and doesn't hold any value without it. I think the argument for removing the credited actors names is perhaps strong, given it doesn't represent the full episode count for many of them. But I don't think the argument for removing the location table is. What I don't understand from a policy perspective is why well-formated reference information is to be abandoned in favour of words. What is the actual policy basis for removal?
- Unfortunately we can't make changes based on the wishes of one reader. I will therefore remove the table, but you can find similar tables at [1]. --TedEdwards 21:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I know I'm late, but I'd like to add my opinion into the mix. I think the table should be kept in. It's my personal opinion that, without the table, the whole article becomes pointless. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=S>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=S}}
template (see the help page).