Talk:The Climb (Game of Thrones)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Precedent for GEOS as a source
editGEOS has a history of use on Wikipedia as a source for straight numerical facts and broadcast statistics:
Good Night (The Simpsons short)
And those are just three. While I would put the viewer-contributed opinions housed on GEOS in the same category as, say, comments on an article, the straight facts provided in the GEOS episode descriptions meet Wikipedia's criteria.
Here is a link to the FAQ and history of the website.[1] [2] Here is its page on the Game of Thrones series. [3] You will notice that contributing content to GEOS is not like contributing content to Wikipedia or IMDB. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS…is that your argument here? Because if you look at the lower left corner of the website, it identifies itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run". It is by definition unusable as a source. Sorry; I was excited by the usefulness presented by the infograph. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just because it's written by volunteers doesn't make it unreliable. The part that random people sign in to add are the survey responses, and that's not what's cited here.
- If unreliability is really the issue, there's always the novel itself. I'll put in the time if I have a reason to think you wouldn't just come up with yet another excuse to hit the delete button, as I have on other articles.
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't seem to apply here, no. That policy is about article deletion and the inclusion of information. I'm talking about the credibility of a source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop re-adding a contentious source during the discussion. Re-add it after the discussion when there's a consensus for it. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the source is reliable. Also see WP:BURDEN and WP:QS. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well it's a little hard to do that when I get the impression that JS or yourself would dismiss anything on any excuse. This is like dismissing an article because the comments are unreliable. I didn't cite the comments; I cited the content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- It would help if you found sources that met the standards of what an encyclopedia requires rather than the standards of a blog. It would also help if you start from sources and reflect what they have to say rather than starting from a thesis and trying to find sources that support your thesis. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should be treated as such when writing articles. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem, DQ, is that there seems to be a big gap between meeting Wikipedia's standards and meeting yours. Don't disown your own views by pretending they're "what an encyclopedia requires." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It would help if you found sources that met the standards of what an encyclopedia requires rather than the standards of a blog. It would also help if you start from sources and reflect what they have to say rather than starting from a thesis and trying to find sources that support your thesis. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should be treated as such when writing articles. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well it's a little hard to do that when I get the impression that JS or yourself would dismiss anything on any excuse. This is like dismissing an article because the comments are unreliable. I didn't cite the comments; I cited the content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop re-adding a contentious source during the discussion. Re-add it after the discussion when there's a consensus for it. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the source is reliable. Also see WP:BURDEN and WP:QS. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
RfC on Oathkeeper
editThere's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?
editThere 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) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The RfC concerning Westeros.org was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be addressed 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. The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
THE Karhold?
edit"tortured at the Karhold"
Isn't Karhold a city? Is the article needed?--Adûnâi (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Karhold is a castle and should not have any the article. Thanks for the find. Askarion 💬●✒️ 13:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)