Talk:Oathkeeper

Should the following sentence be included in the article? (Writing section.)

In addition to chapter 72 (Jaime IX), some of the content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, and 71 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI).[1]

This issue of reliable third-party sourcing has been addressed.[2] The question is whether it should be included or excluded on its own value. 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes for three reasons. 1) Chapter matching has been addressed by multiple third-party, mainstream sources including Forbes, Slate, AV Club, i09, and 538 in addition to specifically GoT-focused sources like Westeros.org. Some of them have written it up more than once. This shows that this information is of interest to the general public. 2) Every GA-rated Game of Thrones episode article has a line naming chapters (as of the beginning of this dispute), had it at the time of nomination and kept it if reassessed. Inclusion of this information has been a non-issue for years. 3) I know from personal experience that readers come to Wikipedia looking for this sort of information because they know it will be presented a) at all and b) in a clear and out-of-universe fashion. While a whole section discussing the book-to-film process might be excessive, a single sentence is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I want to clarify something. I'm not citing the GA episode precedent because I think all episode articles have to be the same. There's no rule on Wikipedia requiring this kind of cross-article consistency. (I personally consider it an extra.) I've cited it here for two reasons: a) Proof that there is or was a wider Wikipedia consensus that chapter-to-episode content should be included in articles of this kind. b) Proof that chapter-to-episode content can exist in articles of this kind without causing detectable problems. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per Darkfrog24's second rationale, as the editor who polished the season 1 GA articles years ago. Not that I disagree with either other rationale, but #2 demonstrates the historical consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• yes, in the body, but not lead it is relevant contextual information that is not of WP:UNDUE weight in an article of this length.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No, for at least four reasons. Chapter-to-episode corollaries are usually synthesis, and sneaky synthesis at that: of the five sources presented above, one is about another episode entirely (and has already been included in prose fashion within the article), one has already been utilized within this article in prose fashion, and three simply cut and paste a Reddit chart graphing the chapters used in the episode. The writers of the aforementioned articles do not - and this is crucial - discuss any of these connections explicitly.

In each article, they discuss the effort that some put into making these connections (as well as how increasingly futile it is to attempt to do so) as episodic material continues to veer away from the source material. They are pointing out the phenomena, not the noteworthiness of the actual comparisons. That may seem a minor point, but imo it is not. The clear dedication to including this information on the part of one editor over several months is, imho, clearly indicative of the rabidness of desire to make these connections. The rest of the readership - and the world - simply does not care; they are just watching interesting television.

That brings up the second problem with inclusion: the chapter-to-episode comparison information is deceptively inaccurate. Not all of Sansa LVI (or whatever) was utilized, and in fact, significant portions of the book chapters cited as being connected never happen in the episode. If all of the chapter happened, verbatim, that would be a point of consideration, but it isn't. We are misleading the reader that is told that Tyrion dons the Iron Man suit (or whatever) in Chapter XXXI and instead, has a beer and reads a comic book in the episode. There are differences, and it is deceptive to pretend that the chapters match up to the episode enough to make a point of it.

I cannot speak to other articles having this content within them, as per other stuff exists. Had I known that the content was there, this discussion would have taken place over a year ago. with my strong voicing of dissent.

As well, while I agree that fans will often come here for information, they also come here to seek out more sources of information...like an external link to the episode summary at Westeros.org. I fail to see why it is not more valuable to the article to point the reader (who likely doesn't give a rat's ass about these connections) in the right direction instead of including information which cannot be explicitly found outside of a fan forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is synthesis when Wikipedia editors determine "content from this source is (or is not) in that piece". it is not synthesis when we quote a reliable source that has made the analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are focusing your response on the synthesis point, but you failed to address the noteworthiness issue. And let us not forget that the source in question is in fact fancruft. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you have a limited amount of Wikipedia background, but when TheRedPenOfDoom and I agree on a fictional topic inclusion debate, you're probably on the wrong side. I think it fair to say we tend to have pretty divergent viewpoints on fictional topics' inclusion standards. At this point, I think you seriously need to mediate on WP:STICK and move on to actually putting in content you like, instead of arguing against content that you, uniquely or nearly so, don't. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, JClemens, you can knock off the passive-aggressive bullshit anytime you want; it is functionally stupid thing for you to do to insult me in order to gain my compliance. Grow up. Perhaps the less-dumbass move would be to answer the question posed to you. I have a bit more experience in Wikipedia than you are suggesting, and my post and view arises from watching things go bad based off a seemingly innocuous decision to do something incredibly short-sighted. If you are unable to address the question, simply say you aren't capable to do so and move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's called 'politeness', but again you have my empathy for seeing enemies in every opposing viewpoint when you are a minority of one with a sincerely held belief. See also my expanded reply to your complementary post on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there, as here wasn't really the place for it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Synthesis is only a problem when Wikipedia does the synthesizing. Wikipedia can and should report synthesis performed by reliable secondary and even primaryish sources like Westeros.org. Yes, it's important to keep Wikipedia clear of fancruft. But a brief report of the connection between a television episode and the book(s) that inspired it does not sink to that level. This is part of covering derivative artworks. Lagrange613 02:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is that in fact useful to the article where an external link to the very same sort of analysis can be viewed outside the realm of the encyclopedia? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument can be made about any content with an online source. We don't just link to sources; we summarize them appropriately. This is an encyclopedia, not a bibliography. Lagrange613 01:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, apparently I am not stating my question properly: what makes this information noteworthy? Some sources - non-SPS sources discuss the comparisons to the book when its relevant. This doesn't point out any relevance; it is information for information's sake. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't your question at all. I'm not going to fall into the trap of discussing things endlessly to no avail that has caused this talk page to balloon well past any reasonable proportion. I believe I've explained my reasons sufficiently. You are welcome to disagree. Lagrange613 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope I am proven wrong over time, that this isn't going to blow up in our face. Like I said, a new consensus has emerged; unlike others, I am accepting it for the duration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, m'lord Readers might likely want to know where they can read the thing they saw, or see how it differs. The Mountain smashed her head in like this, not like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again - how is an external link to the fan forum summary worse? Many articles handle this sort of comparative analysis - and it bears repeating that the only place where this sort of comparative matching occurs in a fan site - using an external link. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is compiled from existing sources, we could just list all those sources and let readers browse through them. They can learn all they would here about the plot, production and reception, too. Something to be said for finding all that presented in one place, though. Clicking a link is worse because you have to click a link. Stressing "fan site" isn't going to make me suddenly remember those are generally frowned upon. In this case, the fan site is accurate, so we should use common sense and make an exception. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed it out because that exception opens a door that will extend far beyond this article (and almost assuredly beyond the parent Wikiproject). I am suggesting that we stop looking at the dirt at our feet and pay attention to where this path leads. Do we really want to begin giving fan sources the same sort of weight that we give sources who don't have a stake in the content? It doesn't matter if the content is accurate (which, I might add, it is not); what is on point is that only a single source is pointing this list of connecting comparisons. I cannot be the only one who think this is nuts. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These concerns are easily addressed: 1) The text is accurate. I checked the books myself, and you're more than welcome to do the same. 2) Westeros.org is not being given the same weight as IGN and AVClub. We wouldn't have had a whole RfC confirming its writers' expert status if it were. 3) As for opening doors, Westeros.org has been in use on Wikipedia, in GA-rated articles, for years with no trouble yet. Let's also remember that these aren't comparisons. No one's saying how Sansa is smarter or dumber or taller or shorter than in the books. They're just saying which events took place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I agree with TRPoD. It's not really a big issue to include a single sentence about the source material. Judicious use of material sourced from Westeros.org can help to flesh out the articles; it's only when excessively trivial details are included that it becomes problematic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that consensus has formed against the common sense views held by others who were simply worn down by the constant RfC's and noticeboard complaints (thus the dearth of opposing views). Since I know this use of fansites is only going to get worse, I am going to take a longer view, knowing that consensus can and does change over time. And, unlike Darkfrog24, I will actually wait for more than a few days before pursuing the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, with some strong reservations on expanding to specific examples (I know that's not being proposed here). I think Jack Sebastian's point about where we draw the line for summary articles on episodes is valuable. But including a single sentence (especially if similar sentences are in other episode articles) is one way to strike that balance. Protonk (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes to the general question, with caveats: To the general question of whether or not the article should note the correspondence between the written books and the episodes, in general, I see no reason why it shouldn't: understanding how the source text (the novels) relates to the show is something that is done in many articles about works adapted for TV or movies, in general I don't find any fault with the concept of saying, in some way "Here's how the source text was used in creating this adaptation". That being said, it would need to be well-referenced to reliable sources to be included, but assuming the sources exist, are above reproach, and are properly cited, I have no qualms about including this sort of information in the articles in question. --Jayron32 03:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's been eight days since our last new comment, I've requested closure on the RfC. As always, I'll take input on wording and make any reasonable changes. This includes withdrawing the request if anyone wants to let this run the full thirty days. The results look clear to me, but I've been wrong about that before. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Started a new RfC as suggested by Cunard. The recommended notifications were sent to all participants in this the previous RfC and the related RSN discussion on the suitability of Westeros.org as a source but I have not yet publicized it further. If any of the long-term participants in this discussion would prefer mediation, please say so soon. I think the wording's about as neutral as it gets, but if I missed something let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We hit four people and both sides, so I'm publicizing. I hit NPOVN and WP:NOT. I didn't publicize at WP:V or the RSN because we've already dealt with the verifiability and reliability issues. This is a much more personal and subjective question than whether a specific source is reliable, but can anyone think of other policies that might come into play here?

NOTE: I did NOT contact Truth Hurts. TH actively declined to participate in our last RfC and, I infer, wants to be left alone on the matter. TH, DQ, Diego, Scooby etc. all knew this conversation was ongoing when they last checked in and we should probably leave them to come back or stay away on their own. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also hit WP:Television, WP:Songoficeandfire and many GoT-related pages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that a newcomer might not know what is meant by "the issue of reliable third-party sourcing has been addressed." I added a tag to the previous discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Jack Sebastian has brought up WP:SYNTH, I have publicized this RfC at WP:ORN. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it didn't occur to me earlier. Publicized at WP:FILMDIFF. I don't personally think that a rule against full sections describing the differences between original and adaptation has all that much to do with a single line about the identities of source and adaptation, but people have thought otherwise in previous discussions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump (miscellaneous). Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be relevant that we got one comment from Scoobydunk at the NPOVN thread and one from Masem at WP:NOT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC) One comment from TheFarix at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]