# Talk:Winter Is Coming

Just a century a go women didn't get to decide who they'd marry. They'd just marry whoever their parents told them, and in a very early age. For a woman to cry on the wedding night was perfectly natural. Calling it a rape decontextualises the event. The fact that it's an arranged marriage against Dany's will is already stated.--RR (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Daenery is raped, she is clearly not crying because she doesn't want to get married. Calling it rape places this scene is a realistic context, rather than decontextualizing it. --Nhudell (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

RR, when women were forced to have sex with their husbands, regardless of whether it was a century ago or 1000 years ago, it was rape.  It still is rape.  Rape has a simple definition:  forced sex.  If the sex is forced, it is rape.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.42.125 (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Caling it rape in this context is unhelpful. It should not be phrased this way in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.78.169 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment. I would also add that this television episode is set in a fictional world. Does anyone support the changing back of the article to mention rape, or forced sex? --Nhudell (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply because it's fiction doesn't mean that murder is no longer murder, or that rape is no longer rape.  What's next, we won't call it incest when Jaime and Cersei get it on?  Because it's a fantasy world?  Of course not.  And if you want to "historicize" rape, the idea of rape goes back at least as far as ancient Greece (lots of rape in their mythology) and ancient Rome (see the rape of Lucretia, part of the downfall of the Tarquin Dynasty and the genesis of the Roman Republic).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.85 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I'm disappointed with all the efforts to force the word "rape" into the description. The matter here is not whether the consumation is rape or it isn't. According to our Western morals of course it would be what we call marital rape. But using this term in this context is ambiguous, and therefore we should use a better desciption when possible.
If you really know about Greek or Roman history you'll agree that while they would also call incest Jaime and Cersei, they wouldn't call rape what Drogo does to Dany. Let's get some examples from the times GRRM drew his inspiration: Margaret Beaufort was twelve when she married 24-year old Edmund Tudor, and had Henry VII at thirteen. Edward III of England married Philippa of Hainault when she was fourteen, and one year later she was pregnant with the Black Prince. Edward's own mother had been sixteen when he was born. Eleanor of Aquitaine was 15 when married to the French king Louis the Younger. Thirteen year old Maria Luisa of Savoy wed Phillip V of Spain, with his firstborn concieved two years later and the marriage probably being consumated before. I could go on. Look at all those articles. You won't find any mention of rape, nor any of those men are called rapers, although we would all agree that all of those cases would be rapes (or marital rapes) according to our standard. But when discussing those peoples and those times the term is not useful at all. In fact, it's misleading.
Because in the world where this story happens not only Drogo isn't comitting any crime consumating the marriage, but also it is Dany's duty to make sure it happens. She doesn't want to, but she has to. And Dany is not going to suffer any kind of social stigma for having been raped. On the contrary, she would have been stigmatized and treated as a pariah if she hadn't.
I really can't see why we can't agree than a redaction such as "the marriage is consumated despite Dany's unwillingness and fear" describes better the situation than "Drogo rapes Dany". I'm explaining why the word "rape" is confusing in this context: it is not "rape" from the character's perspective, it's subjetive, it implies things that are not true. Now I'd like someone to explain me why the word "rape" is need.--RR (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition to this, calling it "rape" is OR absent a source.  If you want to find a review that describes what happened as rape, then by all means it's a viable description.  Until and unless there's an RS that uses that term, it's not our place to include it in the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The use of history to call this rape or not rape is misspent energy.  This is a fantasy world, it could be in the "future" or the "past" or wherever you want to put it.  We populate that world with our own ideas from our actual world.  Rape exists in our world, what Drogo did to Daenerys in the show is rape, thus we ought to call it rape.  Otherwise, we could say that there's no such thing as murder, treason, incest, treachery, etc in Game of Thrones simply because it isn't our world.  We could go to extreme lengths, and say that Jaime didn't try to murder Bran, that Jaime and Cersei aren't incestuous, that defying Robert's will isn't treason, etc etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.85 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC) 

The debate is not about whether what happened was a rape or not. The point you should address if you support the change is why the article would improve by introducing the word "rape" in the writing. (btw, if you want to involve in the project and participate in discussions , I would encourage you to create an account).--RR (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The point of this exercise is to describe what happened in the show.  Daenerys is raped, so we should write that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.85 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks RR, those are very good points, and I see your point of view. My thinking behind using the work rape, is that "unwillingness and fear" is not plain enough an potentially confusing. I would also note that the previous (and still published) wording is "obvious desire to not do so", could be very misleading. --Nhudell (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with you that we don't need to call Drogo "the rapist Drogo" :) --Nhudell (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling him "the rapist Drogo" is a bit out of the spirit of the show, even if technically correct.  However, we can't simply "forget" that Daenerys was in fact raped by Drogo.  Sex without consent is rape, and this appears to be what happened after their wedding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlepori (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reintroducing "rape" to the text without even explaining youself in this discussion. If you want it changed, you should register in Wikipedia and expose your reasons here. If the majority sides with you, then you'll have it your way. At the end, we could even ask for an arbitration. But stop changing the text!--RR (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) It has been explained several times in the discussion why the rape theme needs to be in the article.  It seems you are willfully ignorant of this fact.  (2) You don't like the arguments for why the word 'rape' should be included, which is fine, but you have no right to tell people not to edit the page.
Hi RR, thank you for continuing the conversation. I have not changed the text since you undid my original edit to the article, and I do not want to enter into arbitration without first having a proper conversation about the correctness of the language. I still feel that the current article is inaccurate, and offensive to those (including myself) who see rape as an act of violence and not how it is phrased, as a consummation that is unwilling by one party. Let's discuss that, and not about the etiquette  of an anonymous user. --Nhudell (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)   

Thanks, Nhudell, for engaging in the debate. I hope it isn't needed, but let me state beforehand that I also see rape as an act of violence and none of my edits aim to offend anyone but to improve the article. In fact, I'm surprised by you finding offensive one particular wording. If your statement is that every "sexual act with one unwilling participant" equals to "rape", then we would just be using a synonym here.
Perhaps the simplest argument to leave the word "rape" out of the article is the one Jclemens used upthread. It's unsourced, and the plot summaries from the reporters following the series do not include it. For instance, James Hibberd summarizes the event as "Drogo takes his new bride to a isolated spot, where Dany tearfully watches the sun set on her virginity. He claims his wife in what we're now realizing is the most popular sex position on this show (and has often been ranked in Cosmopolitan's annual survey as womens' favorite position -- so who says Westeros ain't progressive?)." If we go to the two major websites covering the production we got, from wic: "Back across the Narrow Sea and we get the wedding and then soon after the bedding. Another change here, as Dany does NOT enjoy her first time. This change stands to be a bit more problematic as it has been noted that Danys sudden change in attitude towards Drogo later seems less motivated out of love and more of a case of Stockholm Syndrome.", and from westeros.org "Daenerys is less than willing, but years of abuse and domineering from her brother leaves her frightened and unwilling to assert herself."
Summarizing my view: calling it "rape" is misleading, since many authomatic assumptions regarding rape do not take place here. If we named it rape, to avoid giving the reader a wrong impression we should add many qualifiers to the word (there was no pysical violence, it was lawful within the setting, Dany submitted, there was no social stigma attached, etc).The word is just not useful in this context, and disturbs more than helps to a better comprehension. That's why the word is not used by reviewers when describing the plot. And that's why I think we shouldn't use it here.--RR (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC).
What does it matter what other websites say about the show, they are no authorities over us.  We watched the show, didn't we?  We can describe what happened, can't we, without resorting to the words of other people?  I can, in fact, find several websites mentioning the rape of Daenerys.  Does that make it more convincing to you?  And yes, every unwilling participant in a sexual act is raped.  Point blank, that is what the word means.  That is why it should be in the description of events of the show.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.72 (talk • contribs) 
I watched the show, they don't even show them having sex in this episode, calling it rape is nonsense. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you're being willfully ignorant.  It's strongly suggested that they have sex, and it is clear from the need of Drogo to force Daenerys into "position" that this sex was unwanted by Daenerys.Mlepori (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Saying they have sex is inaccurate because they don't in this episode. Saying what's insinuated is even worse, that's blatant WP:POV, only report what you see in the episode, what you think happens after the scene changes has no place here. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If we only should report what we can physically see occur, then all mention of the "consummation" of the Drogo-Daenerys wedding should be removed.  We don't see said "consummation" - the (forced) sex - thus according to your logic we should edit this out.  Fair?  We could instead write somethinng along the lines that Drogo removes Daenerys' clothing, pushes her to the ground, and the scene cuts. Mlepori (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yah, that sounds good, maybe add that she's crying during the scene. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It's seems to me describing drogo a rapist would be a bit like describing plato as a pedophile. Technically acurate but misleading 82.40.4.248 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


### Inquiry for Administrative Staff
{{adminhelp}}
Gday. I see this article has now been semi-protected due to edit warring, despite there being confirmed users involved. This would thus suggest that the administrative team class the edits towards the version of rape being vandalism, as only those contributors are being stopped. Could this be stated clearly? If they are not vandalism and this is actually a content dispute, then surely it should be full protection. Making this clear here would help resolve discussions and establish consensus. --81.98.49.11 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems as if they administrators are treating this as vandalism rather than a content dispute, siding wholly on the side of the one individual (RR) member who is a confirmed user.  The arguments here in discussion is being ignored and RR's version is being preserved either because (a) it came first or (b) he is a confirmed user.  The case should be judged on its merits rather than chronology or hierarchy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.72 (talk • contribs) 
For the record, the current version is not mine. Not only was proposed by another user, but I don't particularly like it (although I can live with it). I find the word "obvious" out of place, and I would like to add "submits" and "fear" somewhere in the phrasing. When I have reverted the anonymous users edits I was doing it not because I supported the current version, but because you can't change polemic statements that are being discussed in the talk page before an agreement has been reached.--RR (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Since the registered users were discussing the matter on the talk page and the IP's were reverting like there was no tomorrow a semi-protect seems perfectly appropriate. I actually requested full protection earlier when the registered users were involved. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
And I've just requested full protection as a no-discussion-needed registered user joined the revert party. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe you're referring to me User:Mlepori.  Why is full protection necessary because registered users are involved in the dispute, vs. non-registered members?  —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
Because it's the only way to stop you and all other involved parties from reverting as you just have done. The IP's were stopped by the semi, the registered users just continued, which is just as unhelpful. Everyone just stop reverting. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, yes, if edit warring then continues by confirmed accounts, the semi protection was insufficient.I have upgraded it to full protected, and restored the version as it was when it was first protected for due to edit warring (WP:WRONGVERSION).This is not an endorsement of either version. In my capacity as an editor, I can see merit in both ways this was worded. I believe there are many sources out there discussing this very scene. I would suggest to try and find a consensus version based on the interpretation of the scene in reliable sources, or to word it in a way that isn't running afoul of today's customs and values, which seems to be the heart of the dispute here.If protection runs out before this is settled, I must remind everyone to still work on this collaboratively, further edit warring would likely be prevented by blocks.Amalthea 18:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You do understand that by locking it as-is you are effectively promoting the current version? Mlepori (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Under the Production heading in the Writing section, one of the chapters has been left out of the paranthetical list. Arya I should be listed as one of the chapters covered by the episode. It was covered at least in part (the stitching scene).
-LWynten  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwynten (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 

You're right that the text was incorrect. Arya I, however, belongs to episode 2 since the stichin scene seen in the episode is not the one from the books (Myrcella's not there). I've fixed the text to solve this and agree with the referenced source.--RR (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I really need to comment on brilliant caption under the main image for this article: "Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell (Sean Bean), as he is about to behead a deserter." Brilliant, I really love this punchy caption.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this shortly. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Specific notes
"Running 62 minutes long" Not sure about that, it's a little too specific, try "Running an hour long..."
disagree - exact is good - and a standard convention for films/TV shows. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
"paving over the work done by director" What do you mean by that exactly?
Hand could do with an explanation in the article, not sure it's used in American (I'm English though, so I wouldn't really know). At least, in the lede, expand it to Hand of the King.
The caption of the photo could do with some concision and a link to Bean.
"his old friend Ned that" 2 commas needed.
"her husband Jon was" 2 commas needed.
"and executive produce" and be executuve producers to
"direct the pilot episode, that was shot between" which was...
"original pilot that did not return for the series" who did...
Link needed to Doune Castle.
Kingdom of Heaven needs a link.
The sentence after the Kingdom of Heaven needs a reference. As does the one after it.
First sentence of Ratings needs a ref.
"the following week climbed the total viewership" That doesn't make sense.
"in United Kingdom" in the UK
The HitFix review needs quote marks.
"show is "feast for the eyes"" a "feast..."
The last sentence is rather clunky.
General notes
Could the lede be expanded a little bit? The paragraphs feel a bit bare as if they need a bit of beefing up?
In "The original pilot" section, the people appearing that are written in list-form should be put in prose.
The Writing section needs a lot more references and the one reference it does have is unreliable and should be removed (it's a fansite).
A lot of the references are unreliable I'm afraid... Out of 15, Ref 1 is a Game of Thrones fansite, Ref 4 is a blog (despite its name), Ref 6 is the same fansite as ref 1, Ref 8 is the same blog as ref 4, Ref 9, as aforementioned, is a fansite, Ref 13 is a blogsite. Ref 14 is a blogsite and not a professional review website. With so many iffy refs, it makes the content kind of questionable which is why I'm going to have to fail this, because it needs a rewrite essentially.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose needs a little bit of work, but once a few changes are made it'll be cushy... the refs however...
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  (citations to reliable sources):  (OR): 
Quite a few ref issues. covered above.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  (focused): 
Could do with a little beefing up.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Perfic'.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Perfic'.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Perfic'.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This doesn't seem very encyclopedic.  The article makes use of jargon such as "wildlings," without any attempt to explain the meaning.  It shouldn't be written just so that fans of the show/book will understand what is being described in the plot details.  To me it looks like: 
"The episode opens with three (fantasy type characters) of (some fantasy group) scouting beyond (some place), following the track of a group of (random fantasy word)s..."

This review is transcluded from Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite. I liked the books, liked the shows, and there is a huge backlog of "pop culture" GANs... review incoming. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Some prose issues and the lead doesn't meet requirements
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Citation needed tags need addressing as well as some issues with the reliablity of some sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead seems a bit skimpy, and the short paragraphs give the prose a choppy feel. Suggest adding a bit to the lead to help avoid the choppy feel to the prose. You also have information in the lead that is not in the body of the article - per WP:LEAD all information in the lead should be in the body of the article also.
Plot:
A problem here is that you mention a lot of things like "The Wall" or "Night's Watch" or "Kingsguard" without specifying what they are. I realize there is a a limit to space for the plot section, but it might be better to lose some of the details that aren't important (such as the detail that a raven bore a letter - instead of "Catelyn informs her husband that a raven has come bearing a letter announcing the death of Jon Arryn, The Hand of the King and Eddard's old mentor. The message also reports that the king himself is coming to Winterfell." this might work better "Catelyn tells Ned that news has come of the death of Jon Arryn, Ned's old mentor who has been the Hand of the King, or main royal advisor, and that the king is coming to Winterfell." The whole section would benefit from this, as right now unless you are a fan of the books you really won't get a lot of the context here.
I've gone through and tried to implement these via a series of expansions, trimmings, copyeditings, and the like. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
In the North:
"After the opening sequence, the Starks of Winterfell are introduced, including Lord Eddard "Ned" Stark (Sean Bean), his wife, Lady Catelyn Stark (Michelle Fairley) and their six children, the heir Robb Stark (Richard Madden), Ned's illegitimate son Jon Snow (Kit Harington), the eldest daughter Sansa Stark (Sophie Turner), the youngest daughter Arya Stark (Maisie Williams), ten-year-old Bran Stark (Isaac Hempstead-Wright) and the youngest son, Rickon Stark (Art Parkinson)."... runon sentence and it also implies that Jon Snow is also Catelyn's son because you have him listed here in with the rest of the children. Suggest breaking this sentence down into several sentences.
Revised. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Across the Narrow Sea:
"...in exchange for the Khal's army." suggest "... in exchange for the Khal leading his army in support of Viserys." or something similar. I don't think it was ever stated that the Khal would give his army to Viserys.
Revised. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Original pilot:
"HBO, after acquiring the rights to the novels with the intent of turning them into an international cable television series." Why is "international" in there? Sounds like you copied it from a press release.
Added a ref for international. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Need to address the citation needed tags here in the article. Cannot be a GA without these being addressed.
"...reusing the sets of Kingdom of Heaven to stand in for Pentos..." totally lost me here. What is "Kingdom of Heaven" - another movie? another TV show? link? And what is Pentos? There will be people reading this that have not read the books slavishly - you need to provide context for those readers also.
Revised. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"In the series, Winterfell was created combining different locations in Northern Ireland and all the scenes from Pentos were relocated to Malta." I believe you mean "In the series as it actually aired, Winterfell was filmed at  different locations in Northern Ireland and all the scenes from Pentos were relocated to Malta."
Revised. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"The pilot remained unaired and the first episode was filmed by new director Tim Van Patten, although some scenes from the original pilot were used in the final cut." I believe you mean: "The original pilot remained unaired and the first aired episode was filmed by new director Tim Van Patten, although some scenes from the original pilot were used in the final cut of the aired episodes."
Revised. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Writing:
"The creators stated that this last change was made to simplify the narrative arc, having the situation improve gradually." Huh? I think one thing would be "the writers" instead of "creators" but what situation? Context is key here.
Removed, since it needed to grow a LOT in order to be clear, and would have been about the arc, not the episode. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Reception:
Do we know where else the episode has aired? Given the "international" nature of the series - surely it's aired elsewhere.
There's a ref to Sky Atlantic viewership, and per IMDb it's aired in 30+ countries to date. How much do you want to see about that? Do we need foreign language reviews? Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
If we can see some foreign language viewership or reviews, just to show something beyond the US and UK - that'd be good and help with the "broad" coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added refs to Canada, Mexico, Chile, Australia, and New Zealand.  There has been a real dearth of solid reviews in those local papers, though.  They print the teaser/promo material the few days before the airing, but then there's not a lot of RS coverage of the airing.  I found an indirect ref to its popularity on an article on copyright and file sharing, though... Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
General:
Is there more critical reception, now that some time has passed? Did not HBO decide to commit to a second season after the first episode, or was that before even that first episode aired?
Yes. Added that.
the plot section is a bit overmuch for the size of the rest of the article. Some solutions might be to cut the plot section down a bit (as per the example section above) as well as fill out a bit more - where were the scenes for this episode shot?
I've trimmed a bit, will try to augment others, but since this has to do the exposition of everything in a way that future episode articles do not, I'm open to other suggestions on how to balance the article better while leaving it accessible to newcomers. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Added more to the international, preview, and reception sections, although not a whole lot relative to the text in the plot, it's my hope that copyediting that and expanding the rest has brought the balance to an acceptable level. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
References:
What makes http://winter-is-coming.net/ a reliable source?
What makes http://www.westeros.org/GoT/ a reliable source?
These are both reputable fansites endorsed by GRRM in his "not a blog", but I will see if I can replace them. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Any progress on this? They are probably both borderline - and it'd be best to replace them. I honestly lean not reliable even with the GRRM endorsement. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Replaced Winter-is-coming, but the Westeros.org ones we're using are 1) to Harry Lloyd's interview, a primary source, and 2) an analysis of which chapters of the book were covered in the episode, and which new scenes were added for the adaptation. In looking for replacements elsewhere (especially for 2) in my work on these series, I just don't see it covered in any RS anywhere.  I don't want to remove the material, but I also don't think it's "challenged or likely to be challenged" material that requires and RS citation.  I would prefer to leave it in as is: cited to a reasonably respected fansite, vs. removing it or leaving it in uncited. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Images:
I'm not sure that File:Eddard Stark.jpg is going to pass fair use muster - it doesn't really "identify" the episode - it identifies the character - but a critical scene from the episode itself would be needed to ID the episode. And any such screenshot would need some commentary also.
Rephrased FUR.  If needed, I can dig up a bit on the beheading, which was actually part of the teaser, too. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's go ahead and put in something to tie the pic to the episode ... mentioning that the pic was used in the teaser wouldn't hurt with the FUR.
Found a cite, put it in the new section on the preview. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
These problems probably aren't utterly unfixable, but they do need attention before I'll feel comfortable passing the article.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, we're to the point where I'd like you to review the work done to date and propose additional tweaks or any other deficiencies that have come to light. Not saying everything's done, of course, but it should be a good bit closer.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good enough for me. I can't say it's anywhere close to FA status but it meets the GA criteria - good work! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of Westeros.org and the content it supports from this and other articles has been contested here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia).  It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome.  Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The RfC on Westeros.org was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be handled separately.  This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. (This article has one.[1]) The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles.  Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Winter Is Coming. 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://grrm.livejournal.com/146855.html?thread=9648551
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://grrm.livejournal.com/2008/06/13/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228004541/http://grrm.livejournal.com/115821.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/115821.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721220540/http://grrm.livejournal.com/118848.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/118848.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017095411/http://grrm.livejournal.com/211736.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/211736.html
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Winter Is Coming. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130104071957/http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/04/14/game-of-thrones-is-behead-of-the-class/ to http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/04/14/game-of-thrones-is-behead-of-the-class/
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to like hindi edission for all seasons of game of thrones. Lakshit1203 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)