Jump to content

Talk:The Long Night (Game of Thrones)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 30 April 2019

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Night (Game of Thrones episode) → The Long Night (Game of Thrones) – Why was this moved without a RM being opened? WP:Naming conventions (television)#Episode and character articles which specifically says to use only the show's title in the disambiguation except when the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page. However, the "Long Night" is neither a character nor a location (unlike Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) or High Sparrow (Game of Thrones episode)), and certainly does not have its own article. This is a case identical to Battle of the Bastards. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It should have been discussed first. And per our guidelines, the previous title was the best possible name for this page. It needs to be moved back as the title doesn't refer to a character or location, thus there's no need for disambiguation in the title itself. Keivan.fTalk 15:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "not discussed first" is not a valid reason for undoing a page move that was already explained in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; if unilateral page moves were blanket banned and "it wasn't discussed" was a valid reason to move back, non-admins wouldn't be allowed perform page moves. "the previous title was the best possible name for this page" -- doesn't make sense, as "the Long Night" was previously discussed in a much more iconic episode of season one, and the titles of individual episodes are not as widely known among the general public as the content of those episodes; "the Long Night" was not mentioned once in the dialogue of this episode. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, I don't watch GOT, so for me the current name is weird, are there any other uses of "The Long Night (Game of Thrones)" to justify the additional disambiguation?. Tbsock (Tbhotch away) (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tbsock, the titular event. Not that it has an article. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MatthewHoobin. Naming conventions says we should not disambig further than necessary. If and when someone creates an article about "The Long Night" as an in-universe concept, then we can change it but as long as there is no article about the Long Night itself, there is no reason to have "episode" in the title. Regards SoWhy 17:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note a lot of the above comments seem to either (a) mistakenly believe that there was no use of the phrase “The Long Night” in Game of Thrones before this episode or (b) acknowledge that the phrase has been used since season one but nevertheless are arguing for the counter-policy position that this article's title should include parenthetical disambiguation that doesn't fully disambiguate the article from the in-universe legend just because we don't currently have an article on that. Article titles, with the exception of PRIMARYTOPICs that do not include parenthetical disambiguation at all, need to be disambiguated in general, not just from hypothetical articles that don't exist yet. Whether it's ignorance of this topic or ignorance of Wikipedia policy, such arguments are generally ignored by closers, even if they are in the vast majority. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I'm just not understanding this correctly, but your comment seems to contradict what is written over at WP:Naming conventions (television)#Episode and character articles. The guideline states that articles should be disambiguated with a qualifier like "episode" if "the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page". Furthermore, it says to "avoid preemptive disambiguation", although it recommends the creation of redirects in order to prevent duplicate articles from being made. Now, I don't watch Game of Thrones, but I'll accept that the phrase "the Long Night" has been used in the series before. Outside of the context of it being an episode title, the phrase only seems to be mentioned briefly in the article World of A Song of Ice and Fire. I think that, for now, the article in question should be renamed "The Long Night (Game of Thrones)", and we can clarify the difference with a redirect hatnote. –Matthew - (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The episode is of course not the primary in the series for this term, as this is an event that happened there and this episode borrows that name. That said, I couldn't find a section on wikipedia dealing with it, with a mention at World of A Song of Ice and Fire#Westeros being the closest. However, it should be noted that "The Long Night" is currently the name used for the upcoming prequel series ([1], [2]) so, even if "The Long Night (Game of Thrones)" per our guidelines refers to episodes, a casual reader will probably not know that and might mistake that for the prequal series. Changing it to "(Game of Thrones episode)" solves that issue completely. --Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a spinoff of Game of Thrones with this title (and please don't point out that there isn't yet: I know), there's no way in hell we can have one article with the title The Long Night (Game of Thrones) and one with the title The Long Night (TV series). That proposal, if it is actually what you mean to propose, is completely ridiculous and clearly unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this with Better Call Saul and "Better Call Saul" (Breaking Bad). There is a reason why the latter isn't titled Better Call Saul (Breaking Bad episode). --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that reason is that the TV series is the primary topic. "Better Call Saul (Breaking Bad)" looks like it refers to the episode, since no one would assume there is a "Better Call Saul" that isn't related to one or the other TV show and no one looking for our article on the spinoff would type "Breaking Bad" before going to the base title. When both titles require a disambiguator, those disambiguators need to fully distinguish the topics from each other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
14:00, 30 April 2019‎ Hijiri88 talk contribs 71 bytes +71‎  Hijiri88 moved page The Long Night (Game of Thrones) to The Long Night (Game of Thrones episode) over redirect: Per all the prior articles on episodes with titles like this. New redirect

and that the previous mover is already involved in the above discussion. Andrewa (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Beric's role

[edit]

Bit of a pickle here. The whole "Azor Ahai reborn" thing is a huge deal (in context), so the part where a guy reborn amidst smoke and salt while the stars bled clasps a burning sword in that "dread hour" when the cold breath of darkness fell heavy on the world should be notable. The darkness literally fled before him (if you "see a darkness" in Arya). Even held out his arms like a backlit Christ as he was stabbed in the sides, to drive home the point, before Melisandre basically explained it in the very next scene. But as best I can tell, sources are still hellbent on twisting this thing till it fits somebody "important". Some of them mention the hero, but only tangentially. So this major angle that started in Season 2 just kind of flickers out here in the sum of human knowledge, per WP:V.

Hardly seems fair to leave such a major plot point out simply because every single reviewer missed it, but on the other hand, I see how that's totally fair. Can't have people basing plot analysis on what's "obvious", because to some people, it's "obviously" the Hound or Gendry or Cersei (because tears are salty, duh). So I'd feel bad about suggesting we ignore all rules per WP:SKYISBLUE. But let's get real here, only one reborn character saved everyone's soul with a flaming sword during this "Long Night". You saw it, I saw it, we all saw it. How can we deny it?

If any online TV reporters are reading this, may the Lord of Light guide you to flatly declare Beric Dondarrion Azor Ahai reborn. The rest of you, keep your eyes open. Somebody must have seen something in that scene's flames, even if they haven't published it yet. Pay no attention to Britain's most trusted digital news brand. It took people three days to realize Jesus died for something bigger, too, and it's only been two this time around. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't really follow what you wrote, other than you apparently think Beric is Azor Ahai reborn. If you find a source for that, by all means include something about it. If no reliable source has mentioned it, then Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for your original research on the matter. I did include a short description of critics' reaction to Arya seemingly fulfilling Azor Ahai's final purpose but not the rest of the prophecy. --DavidK93 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the verbosity. In short, it's not just what I think, but what the episode showed. My recounting of what I saw was more to discern whether others saw it, too, and whether we could agree the primary source alone is sufficient, in the spirit WP:FILMPLOT. I appreciate how your short description has secondary sources, but I worry it perpetuates misunderstandings and obfuscates what really happened in the episode in favour of what some viewers expected (or still expect) to happen.
Nobody in the show or the books has ever said Azor Ahai is supposed to kill the Night King. Putting that idea out there is counterproductive to our reader's understanding of this episode, and the whole angle. As is encouraging them to consider a prophecy regarding a recently reborn servant of the Lord of Light using a flaming sword to serve a vital purpose in ending the Long Night as anything to do with anyone who hasn't been reborn, doesn't serve the relevant god, didn't carry a flaming sword and wasn't explicitly said to have "served his purpose" by the sole authority (in-universe) on the whole subject.
I get how I might sound like a guy on the Internet pushing a fan theory, but if that's all it was, I would write this in some forum (and I haven't). This is just another day in my long Wikipedian journey toward separating apparent facts from reported opinions, and seeking a healthy balance between our need for verifiability and our desire to teach our students the whole truth in a way lesser sites can't or won't. To that end, I've slightly tweaked your critical reaction edit. Hope that's fine, but am open to suggestions. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your tweak to the edit is good. But your thoughts about Beric, I think, would have to be considered exactly the type of "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source" that is explicitly disallowed by WP:PRIMARY. It's what you saw in the episode, but it's not what was incontrovertibly presented by the episode as describable narrative fact. --DavidK93 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. That's why I've not tried to add my thoughts about Beric, only describable narrative facts. Each time, they just just mysteriously vanish.
There is no dispute, per reliable sources, that one and only one warrior drew from the fire a burning a sword during the Long Night. All agree that by using this sword to destroy a wight that nobody else could (at that moment), he saved Arya, who all agree was the only one who could destroy the Night King (at that moment). All note he then blocked the hallway with his own body and gave up his final life (some even give this finishing move a proper name.) They all then note (as the dialogue track does) that he was reborn by the Lord of Light for a purpose now served.
Any reasonable person who has heard of a dude with a flaming sword scheduled to return during the Long Night and save the world from the dead over the last seven years (longer if they read) should be able to find out whether there was any truth to that rumour by reading the plot section of a Wikipedia article on the TV episode exclusively about this exact promised hour. Whether they think this makes Beric Azor Ahai or just lucky is up to them; our job is just to inform them of key points. Since this precise point in the story has inspired standalone articles, doesn't that suggest it's worth mentioning on Wikipedia? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And no, just saying he "sacrificed himself" doesn't count as "already mentioning it". Every day on this show, someone's sacrificing themselves somehow for something or someone, many don't even die. Could mean anything. "Mentioning it" means noting the wight with the upper hand on Arya, the burning/flaming/fiery sword and the fatal Bericade (in plain talk, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I didn't mean that every describable narrative fact must be included in the plot summary, or that any given thing should be included merely because it is describable narrative fact. Only that describable narrative fact is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for inclusion. The very specific details of what physical actions Beric took in the course of sacrificing himself to save Arya, though describable narrative fact, are not encyclopedically notable. Especially because they are not addressed elsewhere in the article. If the article contained sourced analysis of Beric's fulfillment of the Azor Ahai reborn prophecy, then that would be an argument in favor of including more detail on Beric's death in the Plot section. (But even then, the existing level of detail is sufficient that a more detailed description could be well understood if it were included in the analysis section instead.) The standalone articles don't mention anything about Azor Ahai. It is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article to contain deductive breadcrumbs or to leave conclusions up to the reader; the article should explicitly contain the conclusions published by reliable sources. And your descriptions of the prophecy have a tendency to blur the lines between an in-universe and out-of-universe perspective on the episode, as you describe readers wanting to learn the truth of rumors about the characters and their beliefs. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's forget I ever mentioned Azor Ahai. We're in complete agreement that neither the episode nor the sources covering it mentioned that. Nothing should be written in this article about it, because of that. It was only ever intended for Talk Page context, and I'm sorry I brought it up. Probably as coincidental as the Fraggle song.
Now we're on to the completely opposite problem, where the episode, reviews and standalone articles about the plot twist do explicitly show that Beric defeated the wight that was on top of defenseless Arya. They also explain the important relevance of this action toward the ultimate resolution of the episode. But now instead of me suggesting we ignore WP:V to include an implication, you seem to feel we should ignore a key element of the core storyline (Arya's, not Beric's) that's clearly verifiable by reliable secondary sources and urged by MOS:TVPLOT. I'd understand if you wanted to "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names." But saving the girl who saves the day isn't something like that, it's the top babyface's comeback spot. A pivotal moment and a deus ex machina combined, all neatly conveyable in one short sentence.
Absolutely nothing anywhere has ever suggested we avoid relaying major plot points because they aren't already addressed elsewhere in the article. Stop and think of how messy things would get if that were expected (or required). We'd omit the dragons, too. The Dothraki, Bran, Tyrion, Theon, Jon Snow? Burn them all! The existing level of detail is insufficient, and your ideal draconian vision for Wikipedian TV articles could be mistaken for treason. Have I misunderstood you here? And can I read your suggestion for the article to contain sourced analysis of Beric's fulfillment of the prophecy as allowance for mere sourced analysis of Beric's burning of the wight and dying on this night? That's the (reportedly) important thing, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that with the statement, "Beric sacrifices himself to let Arya and Clegane escape," the article very much did already contain this "key element of the core [Arya's] storyline," that Beric dies saving Arya, without which she could not have saved Westeros by killing the Night King. In my last edit, I slightly shortened it from the way you last wrote it, but I retained the explicit additional statement that Beric "saves" Arya. --DavidK93 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly buy your argument, but still contend he made two distinct sacrificial saves. The first was offensive, giving up his trusty flaming sword to neutralize a single immediate threat to Arya alone, somewhat akin to a police sniper picking off a hostage-taker. The next was defensive, spending his own body to buy Arya and the Hound time to evacuate, more like the fattest camper taking one for the team when chased by a bear. That said, your slight shortening showed understanding of Wikipedia's purpose in conveying at least the general points, so much better than this insane hackjob. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored your "save" point, letting it stand for the critical strike and bonus time powerups together. Better to be vague and succinct than wordily half-lying. Nineteen bytes down should make the deletionists marginally happier about retelling anything at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, the closest I find is Chaim Gartenberg saying, "But the show never brings the Lord of Light subplot full circle, outside of sacrificing his servant Beric to save Arya. Is that close enough to mention here?
Taylor Williams wonders "specifically in relation to the prophecy of Azor Ahai and the resurrections of Beric Dondarrion and Jon Snow by Red Priests. While the argument can be made that the series finale did in fact prove Jon Snow was Azor Ahai, the Prince that was Promised, his survival negates that. In 'The Long Night', audiences learned that the Lord of Light continued to resurrect Beric as he still had a purpose to serve, namely saving Arya during the Battle of Winterfell so she could go on to kill the Night King." Anything useful there?
Matt Fowler notes "the Lord of Light's magic being used to resurrect Beric a bunch of times to save the dawn", but then immediately concludes "there's no certainty here that anything Azor-related happened." He notes the burning sword and how he who clasps it shall be Azor Ahai come again, and somehow figures "Based on just these clear (ish) words though, none of this really came true." Really now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if PopBuzz.com is a "reliable source", but Emma Clarke at least flatly declares "it was Beric Dondarrion who owned Lightbringer". Still trapped in the assumption that killing the Night King and sitting the Iron Throne ever had anything to do with anything, though. When combined with Bran and Arya, it does "seem like" a bit of a cop-out. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed Plot

[edit]

Who keeps changing the Plot section of this page to a small one-paragraph synopsis? Literally every single episode of Game of Thrones over the past seven and a half seasons, 69 episodes in total, have had detailed plot synopses. That's what most people come to these pages FOR, after all. Please stop removing all the plot details and shortening them to one paragraph. Damonskye (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that almost every single episode is over the limit of 400 words as per WP:TV. QueerFilmNerdtalk 23:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to restore this deletion. Even someone who believes another Azor Ahai is yet to deliver (or simply never cared) can see how Arya being saved from certain doom by anyone is important. The flaming sword and great sacrifice aspects are less crucial, but still a bit neat. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restored in a way that doesn't suggest anyone can "kill" a dead man. Others have mentioned other key points and (as of now), I think it's both a quick read and an informative one. About one "page", by my screen at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take issue with the idea that being caught by the Night King, even briefly, sounds nice. Leaving it out simply makes it seem like he didn't catch her. It might be nice to not mention bad things, but some bad things are important to general audiences. Judging from the reaction videos out there, this sudden snatch is one of those things. Hell, it's even a Wikilinkable callback opportunity. I say it matters. Trim filler first if you need to trim anything (will anyone really miss the Dothraki if they just suddenly disappeared?)
And while I'm here, I may as well throw a non-rhetorical poll: Does Melisandre turn to dust at the end or just fall into snow? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this episode and others is, despite its length, its incredible simplicity. Much of the episode's length is filled with battle scenes that don't need to be described in detail. At this writing, the summary is 566 words. Likely excessive. I will most likely attempt to trim it without removing important details. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't battle scenes need to be described in detail? Isn't this the article about the episode where the battle that ends the war that started in the first episode's prologue takes place? I expect readers might want to know (or be reminded) of how it went down, not just that it did. It only seems incredibly simple if we pretend the final showdown wasn't a showdown at all, just some chump getting jumped before he knew what hit him. That sort of underrecapping makes him seem like a sloth, her like a coward and the writers like they ran out of ideas.
And Jorah just dies "defending" Daenerys. Did he get melted by an ice spider, fall in a pit, or get gradually butchered alive fighting endless waves of dead alongside her but repeatedly refusing to join them until she was safe to carry on without him? The distinction is important, whether we see those two as unrequitted lovers, a snappy political duo or the new tag team champions of the world. Anybody even vaguely aware of Jorah over the last decade might reasonably wonder some day whatever happened to that guy. All we're basically telling them today is he did what he always did and is still never going to kiss her. Did she even cry?
I won't even mention all the non-violent things from the crypt we're burying, but I'm sure a more highbrow reader might be interested in which potentially scandalous deathbed confessions (if any) were uttered amongst whom. At least we know Sansa and Tyrion "prepare to take a stand". We have no idea what she intends to do, since Arya hasn't given her a weapon (or even seen her) in the Wikipedia version, but that's OK. The important thing is she's not just hiding behind a tomb and crying, while he excuses himself to hide with different people, like in the TV version. Our truth is certainly less boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the Sansa and Tyrion bit to "hide together" (at a savings of ten whole bytes). That was less an omission and more a lie. I've left the two fights incomplete for someone else to fill in, but still consider their actual moves more encyclopedically valuable than this unchoreographed clashing of cryptic glances. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misremembering. I thought, when the dead rose in the crypt, Sansa and Tyrion drew their weapons and stepped out from behind the sarcophagus in a fighting stance; the dead disintegrated almost immediately thereafter, before their dubious combat ability was tested. Can anyone else comment on if they recall the scene similarly? I'll try to find a way to rewatch. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're still wondering, no fighting stances. Just a deep breath, as if to suggest something big was about to happen. But I misremembered him leaving her to cry; they hid with different people together. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Description

[edit]

Since apparently no one can agree on how to describe the critical reception to the episode, so we stop the edit warring, how about we discuss it here? How should we describe critical reception to the episode? Positive, mixed to positive, mostly positive, mixed, something else completely? Let's get in consensus about this since it's changing almost by the hour. QueerFilmNerdtalk 05:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The overall critical reception seems to be mixed to positive, as far as I can tell. Isi96 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every review I've read so far liked some things and not others. That's usually how it goes, I find. "Mixed" works. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed to positive might be slightly more accurate in this scenario. While the reviews are lower for GOT standards, they still slant positive by every metric out there (rottentomatoes, imdb, etc). (Ben AZH9) 08:09, May 3, 2019 (UTC)
Holy crap, another person who Wikilinks his timestamp! For years I've wandered this site, hoping I wasn't the only one but evermore fearing I was. As far as I know, this fateful day wasn't foretold in the archives, so I'm not exactly sure what we're supposed to do now (if anything), but it seems fair to finally meet you here. Cheers to neutrality with just a subtle hint of optimism! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
They chopped mine off, now you're the only one! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the recent reviews I see on YouTube and IMDB are very, very negative, especially criticizing the writing of the episode. Initial reviews after the episodes airing are indeed very positive, but considering the more recent reviews, I'd say the mixed consensus is the right one. DikkeLu (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a consensus forming here for something along the lines of "mixed" or "mixed to positive"; I would probably go with the latter. I would also argue that the negatives being pointed out by detractors aren't being covered well by the article at present (the lack of character deaths and the unexplained death-defying survival of main characters in hopeless positions, the questionable battle tactics). And I'm not sure why an entire paragraph is being dedicated to Beric's death. At the very least, probably the most ubiquitous criticism of the episode would be the lighting; this should probably be mentioned in the summary. I don't know how the process works but someone should go ahead and edit the reception to 'mixed to positive'; I'd do it myself because again it seems to be the consensus from this discussion, but wouldn't want to overstep.CMSPhys (talk)
As the author of the paragraph, I'll admit I'm a bit biased toward its inclusion. But my personal pride and jealousy pale next to the good it does the wider battle between "positive" and "negative" reception. At face value, it's simply something critics praised; alongside Arya's performance, these two balance, coplement or "mix" with the damnation of the literal darkness and of its metaphorical breaking too soon. If you look a little closer, it's also quite concise and precise. In six lines, it shows five people from four articles discussing three aspects of two people meeting in the light of the one true god. This cohesive focus is a welcome change of pace from the preceding paragraphs, which are a similar length, but favour lengthy quotes about divers tangential subjects, from Cersei to the editing to The Wire. That's not to knock those paragraphs, I'm just saying too many of the same sort in a row might get monotonous; replace the praise for for the messiah with similar reliably sourced acclaim for the leper or the pariah (Jorah or Reek), and the "positive and specific" effect would remain. It could just seem a tad incongruent, since they saved two characters who aren't already exalted in this section like Arya is. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah - I now see it had already been changed, and someone changed it back to 'positive' - reverted. CMSPhys (talk)

It’s definitely mixed, at best, google “The Long Night” and it’s basically nothing but negativity. It’s already been famously polarizing among the fanbase. I suspect HBO PR may have a hand in these edits. Benjamin7887 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put the description as mixed? Should we RfC this since no one can seem to agree when editing what to put it as or are we good with mixed? I think mixed seems to be a good descriptor. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:01, 4 May 2019

It’s mainly IP editors warring; “mixed” doesn’t mean 50/50, but simply that there is a mix of different views, which is clearly the case here, with reviews across the full spectrum. Mixed will do as the temporary consensus pending anyone wishing to RfC it, although that seems overkill to me. MapReader (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree though if someone seriously disagrees they're free to open one. Mixed seems fine to me. QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode received mostly positive reviews" "The episode received a mixed reception" This makes no sense.

Transfo47 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Long_Night_(Game_of_Thrones)&oldid=1195153966"