Talk:Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A Song of Ice and FireWikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireTemplate:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireA Song of Ice and Fire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 15 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: Moved to Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) per overwhelming consensus. This move was already carried out by Hijiri88 who didn't realise a discussion was taking place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winterfell (Game of Thrones) → Winterfell (episode) – "Game of Thrones" does not distinguish from the subject of the "Winterfell" page, which also refers to a concept in Game of Thrones. 86.41.248.128 (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles, the disambiguator should include the series title and follow the same naming as other episodes of the series (Category:Game of Thrones episodes). Any confusion is already handled in the hatnote. --Netoholic @ 21:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on this - WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles only requires use of (SeriesName episode): Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page.... Since the fictional locale Winterfell doesn't have its own page, no need to use extended disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 00:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While a redirect is not an article, I would say that it is a page. It's something with a title on Wikipedia. If I type "Winterfell" into the search bar looking for the episode, whether it takes me to an article or a subsection for the location makes no difference to the fact that I'm in the wrong place and term is needed to distinguish between the two. "episode" or "Game of Thones episode" succeeds in doing this. "Game of Thrones" alone does not.
If the redirect did not exist, then yes, there would not be another page and "Winterfell" would be an appropriate title for this or "Winterfell (Game of Thrones)", in the hypothetical scenario that disambiguation was needed from another non-Game of Thrones "Winterfell" page. -- 86.41.248.128 (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) per nom. The DAB here could easily redirect to Winterfell, so I don't view it as sufficient. For similar titles see Chase (House episode), Krusty the Clown (The Simpsons episode), The Sopranos (The Sopranos episode), and Treehouse of Horror (The Simpsons episode). Nohomersryan (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In those cases, there were full articles about other elements within the series, such as Krusty the Clown. Certainly this option is better than the original request, but it seems pedantic when Winterfell is just a redirect to a page section. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Winterfell is just going to be a redirect to a section, then the episode article might as well be placed there, since it's about the same claritywise as Winterfell (Game of Thrones). (But that's for another discussion, and I have my doubts people would go for it.) Nohomersryan (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the episode is named for the locale, that indicates that the locale is primary, so the current WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 00:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support Vague and not consistent with the available articles (i.e. Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)). Unless you decide to move each of the previous ones. Keivan.f^Talk 22:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to "Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)", but as one of the other users mentioned, all the GoT episodes that have a similar way of formating titles need to get moved as well. Keivan.f^Talk 12:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode). as per above statements, the current title is fine and remains consistent with the rest of the titles. Also agree with the above that the episodes stated as examples were full pages rather than just a section as Winterfell is. QueerFilmNerd^talk 00:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have since changed my opinion to support, after reading through the other comments, I have no issue with a name change. QueerFilmNerd^talk 23:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:NCTV. Hat note exists for the location. 193.115.92.45 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The purpose of disambiguation disambiguate. If a title is not actually helping distinguish, it may as well be useless (it's why some songs have only (song) while others have the year or band name). --Yaksar (let's chat) 01:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for songs and TV episodes appear to be different. It's been already mentioned above by someone. Keivan.f^Talk

I'm missing where, but I'm not sure the point -- it's the same issue of disambiguation that doesn't actually disambiguate anything not being helpful.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support There may very well be a page for the the castle Winterfell in the future, and that's already a redirect. — Confession0791 ^talk 06:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but no objection Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is just fair and logical, as things should be; this is to avoid confusion when the Winterfell has its own page —--Christian Liberty (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winterfell can easily get its own article. As said, if it doesn't disambiguate it's not a good disambiguator.--RR (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be a page for the the castle Winterfell in the future. --IndexAccount (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but should be Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) as mentioned. (I think that still counts as "support. Not sure.) "Game of Thrones" as disambiguator does not distinguish "Game of Thrones episode" from "Game of Thrones setting," but the two should be disambiguated. --DavidK93 (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support The hatnote already exists for the location, so there shouldn't be any uncertainty. The current level of disambiguation is clear and consistent. Somethingwickedly (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all the comments, and others updated votes, and I'm minded to support the move to Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode), but I still oppose the move to Winterfell (episode). I would also support other Game of Thrones episode page moves with the same proviso. Somethingwickedly (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support "(Game of Thrones episode)" rather than just "(episode)". Incomplete disambiguation pertains here: if the other thing it's being disambiguated from is also a Game of Thrones thing, then just "Game of Thrones" isn't actually helping to disambiguate it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, "episode" is too vague. I would support changing this article (and Dragonstone for that matter) to (Game of Thrones episode). AdA&D ☆ 21:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Winterfell (episode), but support Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode). Former is way to ambigious, but I think the latter does make the necessary distinction. My intrepretation of WP:NCTV is that when, in this case an episode of the show and a fictional location in the show have the same name, they should be Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) and Winterfell (Game of Thrones location) respectively (obviously the latter should be a redirect). I don't think consistency among titles is important; readers don't tend to look at the article names all at once, I don't see how it will impede anything, and I can't see anything relevant on WP:NCTV, so I invite Netoholic, Keivan.f, and QueerFilmNerd to explain to me why a lack of consistency of article names is a problem.

N.B. I will shortly create a similar discussion at High Sparrow (Game of Thrones), to disambiguate from High Sparrow (latter article being the character), and at Dragonstone (Game of Thrones), according to AdA&D's reasoning, if anyone wanted to know. --Ted Edwards 23:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the comments I have no issue with a name change. QueerFilmNerd^talk 23:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TedEdwards: If you a start a move request for the episodes that have similar form of naming, such as "High Sparrow", "Fire and Blood", etc. then I would also support this name change. My only concern was about consistency, but now that all of them are going to get moved, I don't see any problem here anymore. Keivan.f^Talk 12:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan, so you mean Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) → Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones episode), for instance? While consensus is based on compromise and I'm not against your idea (it doesn't cause any ambiguity), I would need an explanation as to why it's neccessary that/better if the titles are consistent with each other in order to support a move (and therefore start an RFM), rather than be neutral to it. --Ted Edwards 17:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI see my link to the WP:NCTV discussion below. If the proposal passes then we won't need RMs for these, they can be done as uncontroversial technical moves to align with (new) policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I respect the suggestion of including the series name, which is proving more popular than the original suggestion. I hope I don't sound ungrateful or stubborn if I say I'm having trouble understanding the need for it.
Isn't the purpose of the text in parentheses only to distinguish from similarly named pages, not to add extra information about the subject? In this case, "Game of Thrones" does not do anything to distinguish from the other "Winterfell" page.
I understand that adding the series name would make the title less vague, but the same could be said for renaming "Mother's Mercy" to "Mother's Mercy (Game of Thrones)". However including the series name serves no purpose in distinguishing the page from another page. -- 86.41.248.128 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode). Per WP:IAR: When the disambiguation rules prevent you from actually disambiguating in any meaningful manner, ignore them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please participate in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Additional disambiguation, an attempt to codify a fix to the logical inconsistency we've discovered with the WP:NCTV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode), for all the reasons outlined here, and at WT:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winterfell (episode). Anything else is unnecessary per WP:CONCISE. Calidum 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it violates the WP:NCTV guideline, and "episode" isn't even specific to a medium, and so is therefore not WP:PRECISE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IJBall: Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) also violates the WP:NCTV guideline, because the locale Winterfell does not have its own article. -- Netoholic @ 01:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~either Winterfell (episode) or~~ Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) The current title is clearly inappropriate, since we don't use parenthetical disambiguators that don't fully disambiguate. And sorry for my having accidentally overruled this ongoing AFD a little while ago. It seemed like an obvious, technically correct action, and I had no reason to assume there was an ongoing discussion. (As an aside, is it just me or does it seem like we have this discussion on every GOT episode with a one-word title? It would be great if the GOT editors could familiarize themselves with our naming policies before these articles are created at the wrong title.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Winterfell (episode) is not a good idea. Including the name of the show appears to be standard, per the above-linked Doctor Who RM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose name as suggested as it goes against WP:NCTV and is notably not WP:CONSISTENT with practically all other episode articles on Wikipedia, which means that this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should not be able to supersede a very wide community consensus on how this disambiguation should be. I do support Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) as that is supported by WP:NCTV and is CONSISTENT with other articles that need extended disambiguation. --Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page's name as "Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)" with the full disambiguater. Winterfell is also a place in Westeros in the Game of Thrones scenario. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Why was this article moved while an RM was in place? A notice was and is in the article. Disappointing. 193.115.115.177 (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@193.115.115.177: The better question would be why you are logging out of your account to post an off-topic, harassing comment. Disappointing. I know I shouldn't be humoring such behaviour, but FWIW I came to this article, saw it's laughably bad title, did not read the article or the tags, and decided to move the page per WP:BOLD. I had already apologized for this misunderstanding below, a full four days before you posted the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 27 April 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.

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close The bot cannot handle more than one requested move on the same page. * Pppery * _{has returned} 12:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) → Winterfell (Game of Thrones) – Ongoing move request here Calidum 03:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calidum: Winterfell is also a place in Westeros in the Game of Thrones scenario. Keep the full disambiguater. See long discussion started 6 days ago hereinabove. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: I accidentally moved the page while it was already being discussed above. Now that I have noticed that there was an RM taking place, I agree that my action was inappropriate. Calidum (talk · contribs)'s action above, opening an RM to move it back to the unpopular previous title supposedly to let the RM run its course, is arguably worse, but that's beside the point. My unilateral move should be undone for the sake of the above RM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 21 April 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.