Talk:House of the Dragon

Oh... he says it from 12:30 to 13:00 in that interview [1], "200". Combined with the fact that they've admitted through casting releases that it's about Rhaenyra, Daemon, Alicent, and other Dance characters. --24.186.101.72 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Heirs of the Dragon (article)
2. The Rogue Prince (House of the Dragon) (article)
3. Second of His Name (article)
4. King of the Narrow Sea (article)
5. We Light the Way (article)
6. The Princess and the Queen (House of the Dragon) (article)
7. Driftmark (article)
8. The Lord of the Tides (article)
9. The Green Council (article)
10. The Black Queen (House of the Dragon) (article)

-- Alex_21 _TALK 04:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning that the viewer load apparently locked many viewers out of the premier? House of the Dragon: HBO Max Crashes as Millions of Game of Thrones Fans Tune in for Series Premiere - IGN 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F5B8:43BD:EAB0:E531 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be approaching

Information about audience viewership should use reliably sourced official ratings data, such as

BARB (UK), OzTAM

(AU) and similar reliable sources

I know there can be a predisposition among a show's fans to paint a show's viewership in the best light possible, and while I have no reason to dispute HBO's estimate of 9.99M viewers across TV and streaming (and of course that is the number being parroted across most industry media), the fact remains that it's self-reported by HBO, and not something (at least at this point) verified by an external ratings provider like Nielsen which only reports linear TV viewership. I think it's fine to note that this is something HBO is claiming, but not to include in other tabular data unless/until it's externally verified. Am I off-base here? — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 16:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The matter seems to have been resolved. 🙂 — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 14:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may have something to do with the number of articles out there reporting the 'all inclusive' numbers claimed by HBO. Since the show has just been renewed there will be more people reading and not understanding the context of what is being reported. There's also the issue of those numbers being used on the episode article itself for the premiere too. 2A00:23C8:5228:1601:DD20:4A32:C5A3:879C (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the titles of episodes 3 to 10 are given without any source. Is there any valid source supporting them, or should we remove them?--RR (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed sourced, but using the column reference (beside "Title") instead of each individual row. Because it's using the same reference (Rotten Tomatoes), it's just easier to use it once at the top of the table, instead of each episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Logo house of the.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear your schedule for Sunday evenings this fall. All episodes will air on HBO and HBO Max at 9 p.m. eastern. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a40811323/got-house-of-the-dragon-release-schedule-hbo/ Peter K Burian (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The air dates are in the episode table. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these numbers can't be independently verified as of yet by Nielsen are they really worth including in the article? I feel there's a lot of confusion over the way the viewership section is written which is causing IP editors to think the 9.99 million, 10.2 million etc is the live rating for the broadcast on HBO. There's also the issue of HBO Max's reported combined linear & streaming numbers being used on the 'episode articles' over the actual verifiable Nielsen ratings. I thought only Nielsen ratings can be used on pages? 2A00:23C8:5228:1601:543F:46A9:B9FE:733A (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly said that they are numbers from all platforms. As far as independent analysts go, they don't have full access to all Warner platforms. And even then the numbers they report are an estimate based on a sample. Nielsen bases its rating and viewership estimates on a sample size of 40,000. It's not like they're installed in every household. Whereas WB/HBO at least has control and access to its own platforms. Nielsen ratings are only used for TV viewership and not streaming or overall viewership on Wikipedia unless there's data from them. There's no confusion here and we are not prohibited from using first party sources. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's stated in the article that Alan Taylor is going to become a co-showrunner. Is he though? There were news about him stepping in as a director and excl. prod., not in a showrunner's role ScanCom (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed. An editor incorrectly added this information. Per the sources, Taylor is joining as director/exec. producer, and Condal will be the sole showrunner. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title speaks for itself, why this topic keeps getting removed from the article with no valid explaination and contradicting the neutrality it was told me about that continues seemingly to be violated by the same people talked to me about and constantly reverting my edits? 151.44.52.32 (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

151.44.52.32 and Drovethrughosts, you 2 appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please discuss your edits here on the talk page so consensus can be reached for the edit. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already started a discussion about this just above this one. Why don't you rewrite this advice there? 151.44.52.32 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits from 151.44.52.32 are poorly written, full of hyperbole and editorializing that does not match the quality of the rest of the article. Drovethrughosts is a long time and prolific wikipedia contributor while 151.44.52.32 doesn't even have an account or any edit history beyond this article Woahitsraj (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the most neutral version of this topic I could. I added the full quote from Condal from the interview with EW. The IP is adding unreliable and biased sources (

Newsweek post-2013 is generally considered unreliable and Daily Signal is a biased right-wing website); and adding phrases such as "revisionism", "blackwashing", "wokewashing", "controversial", "white guilt", which are nowhere to be found in any of the sources used. The IP is adding their own opinion by claiming the creators statement as being "controversial" and then linking that word to "white guilt". Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I wouldn't say it was poorly written, it was pretty specific and detailed, and I didn't notice grammar errors. I was simply reporting controversial facts confirmed also by the sources and I tried to be neutral as possible as I was editing along (I also removed the link to white guilt article because I initially thought it was in an appropriate context, and used controversial instead of racist). And the accusations of revisionism and blackwashing/wokewashing were real, didn't you read? Not to mention we have articles here and other Wikipedias talking about them. Plus, this is a poor and unjustifiable excuse, you don't have to have a nickname account to edit on Wikipedia and even to create a voice o section. 151.44.52.32 (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, while I agree the fact that you're just an IP address while Drove has an account here on Wikipedia (and has been editing for 13 years which is why I warned you for edit warring but not them as they should know better), I don't think they are using the fact that you're an IP as an excuse for their edit being "right". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the same IP was adding a bunch of agenda pushing stuff recently and edit warring over it. I don't have an account here myself but I removed some of what he added and got reverted recently by an admin before they protected the page. I think you should look at restoring the edit I made as its a valid one and was missed by drovethrughosts. 2A00:23C8:5228:1601:BC1F:72A8:FEBD:5444 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the character descriptions include advanced spoilers of the show? These have been taken from the book, and list upcoming marriages and births that haven't yet been aired. I think for the majority of people, character actor names would be sufficient without biographies about what will come to pass this season, or even next. 185.222.21.204 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:SPOILER spoilers are allowed. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

have all of these characters futures actually been confirmed to be happening in the TV show? Or has this been assumed from the book and it will be faithful? I'd edit them out until it is fully confirmed. 185.222.21.204 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these need to come out - we have no idea whether the show will follow the plotline of the books and we shouldn't have supposition in here. Equally, because we know that they likely will follow the books, it's also unexpected spoilers for stuff that hasn't aired, which is unfair on readers (such as myself!), especially when that level of detail isn't often found in character sections. But the first point is why it definitely needs to go. HornetMike (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The character descriptions for this page should be not detailed and relatively spoiler free. There should certainly not be spoilers based on events from the book that have not yet occurred in the show. Refer to the GOT article cast and characters section--that's about how detailed the character list on a show's main page should be. Essentially, the character descriptions on a show's main page should present information about the character as they appear in their first episode. RaCJ1325 (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree though that spoilers must come only from aired episodes, not from the book/unaired episodes. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace "Also, the king relents and sends aid to the Stepstones as Daemon, Lord Corlys, his brother Vaemond, and the remaining House Velaryon soldiers fight a losing battle against Triarchy forces. Ser Laenor arrives on his dragon Seasmoke and helps defeat the enemy. Daemon kills the Crabfeeder." in Episode 3's summary with "After receiving a call for aid from Corlys's nephew, Viserys relents and sends aid to the Stepstones. Seeing the arrival of his brother's aid as the end of his opportunity to prove himself, Daemon uses himself as bait to ambush and slaughter the Triarchy, killing the Crabfeeder in the ensuing battle." Ash-Greninja (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have since edited this as the new text was overly wordy, awkward, and laden with clumsy prepositional phrasing. It also uses a passive, rather than an active voice. PNW Raven (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Debressor continually reverts my edits in the Episode 3 summary and is engaging in edit war behavior. The last sentence has multiple issues: it is overly long and wordy and uses multiple prepositional phrases that creates a choppy sentence structure. He claims he did not write the text, but acts possessively over it as if there is some personal connection. He never attempts to improve the text, but instead reverts it back. I've continually made different edits (not reverting) to find some consensus, but his action is always to revert everything, claiming an "edit war", and refusing to allow any changes.PNW Raven (talk)

First of all, my name is "De Bresser". Secondly, what are you blabbering about a personal connection? Do you think my last name is Targaryen? Or Martin? So what are you insinuating?

I think that "Seeing the arrival of his brother's aid as the end of his opportunity to prove himself, Daemon uses himself as bait to ambush and slaughter the Triarchy, killing the Crabfeeder in the ensuing battle." is a very clear sentence, and better than "As Viserys's ships arrive, Daemon, believing this will prevent his proving himself a leader, becomes the bait to ambush the Triarchy forces, killing the Crabfeeder in the ensuing battle." I mean "becomes the bait"? Who made him bait? He himself did. Then say so! Also, I think that Deamon wants to prove himself. Period. Not a leader, not a prince, just prove himself. That is in his character. So why add "a leader"? It is not needed. In general, I am only restoring the previous version, which you decided to change for no good reason, so per

WP:BRD please show consensus for you insistence on your preferred version. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, your name may be De Bresser, but your editor name shows as "Debresser," and that is what I addressed you as, and why would I know your real name, so what are you blathering about? Secondly, I clearly listed my reasons for the changes, but every attempt to improve the clumsy sentence structure, wordy text, overusing prepositional phrasing, passive voice, etc. was reverted by you. I stated that you are acting possessively by refusing to allow any improvements. I changed most of the summary for very good reason: it was poorly written. Saying you "think" Daemon just wants to "prove himself" is vague and unhelpful. What does he want to prove? Is he a good leader, a good prince, or maybe just a great tap dancer. Who knows? I actually wanted to eliminate the "bait" wording altogether and wrote that he feigned surrender, but that was reverted, as was everything else. PNW Raven (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you noticed the space that is the difference between my real name and my username. Congratulations.

Since you didn't understand me the first time, I will explain myself better, hopefully. The character of the Daemon character is such that he wants to prove himself. Period. In whatever field, or whatever role or function. Not necessarily as a leader. In this case more likely as a warrior. But, again, that is besides the point. The point is that he needs to prove himself, in whatever it would be. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "notice" the space difference between your real and username, but solely went by how it is spelled here. I completely understood you the first time, but disagreed, so please stop explaining yourself.PNW Raven (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should not edit your previous comment after I replied to it. Don't know how long you have been active on Wikipedia, but please review

WP:TALK#REPLIED

.

You waited two whole days to reply. Might as well have left the dead horse alone. Aparenly

WP:DEADHORSE

is another thing you never heard of. Or find it hard to implement.

In any case, please stop replying to my comments, as you replies serve no purpose other than to prove that other editors best stay far away from you. Debresser (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop replying to my comments, as your only purpose is to "have the last word." The Dead Horse guideline does not apply here. PNW Raven (talk) 16:37, 14 Sep

After I saw the following two edit summaries, I would like to know if it is okay to incorporate in the episode summaries information that can not be inferred from the episodes themselves. I am referring to

• "Daemon's inability to have sex with Rhaenyra is not "conjecture" and is confirmed by the show's producers in the the episode's post-show discussion." [2]
• "As explained in the after show discussion on HBOMax, Daemon is impotent (their word) in the moment, unable to become sexually aroused with his niece, rather than having a moral crisis in the moment." [3]

I personally am not sure that this is not a good idea. Is there anything in Wikipedia policies and guidelines about this? Debresser (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:No original research is probably the best policy to cite here. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Plot section, the plot section of television episodes should only include basic descriptions, not an analytical interpretation of why something happened in an episode. Having said that, that doesn't mean it should be excluded from the article entirely, it may be useful for the reader to be included in the "reception" section. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that called it a conjecture. I personally don't think it belongs in the plot description, especially when two people in the post-show discussion gave somewhat varying interpretations to what happened. Also, it's been that one single user who kept trying to add that content back. Estariel (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should an episode summary not be a summary of what has happened in that episode? Outside speculation or prior knowledge of things not related to an episode don't feel relevant or required.2A00:23C8:5228:1601:88F7:A266:EAB6:7E28 (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Kilmer is confirmed as the director of 1.05 and 1.09, per IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0453270/ Hyphenation (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not reliable as it's user-submitted (

reliable sources to add information for upcoming episodes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with above, I'm going to further and say the entire Cast & characters section needs to be overhauled. This probably would be best to do after the first season airs. There are too many main cast/recurring/guest roles that need to be hashed out in accordance with the MOS. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we separate the blacks and the greens in the section of cast. The show is about it. I think it will be better to understand which characters belongs to which side. Kindly see my edit that was just got reversed and review it. I didn't add anything just separated the characters as it should be. Talking about Viserys for me he was black as he supported her daughter most also he wanted her to be the queen. That's why he was in blacks section. Also the only major character that died in s1. I tried to edit it in the style of game of thrones. Also I want to request to create a separate page for casts like game of thrones so we can elaborate about characters more. 27.62.226.241 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For Season 1, I don't think it would be appropriate yet. If we follow the books for now, it might be more complicated than simply separating characters into 2 camps. Some characters may want to stand aloof for quite a while before being forced into one camp or the other. Other characters may change sides (sometimes more than once) when it is to their advantage to do so. (e.g., Walder Frey and Roose Bolton in Game of Thrones) The show runners may throw some surprises into their story with some of the minor characters to make things harder to predict. -- 50.231.49.42 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is nothing in the series about "blacks" and "greens". Perhaps this was taken from the books, but we can't use that here. Obviously, this may change as new episodes see the light.

p.s. I am aware that "green" was mentioned as the color of war of the Hightowers. That s not enough. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We generally don't separate cast based on in-universe reasons such as perceived allegiances or factions. We follow actor credit order per
  here. What needs to be stop happening is the changing of the order of the cast, as that it needs to follow credit order or the moving of starring actors to the recurring list; for example, 27.62.226.241 moved Graham McTavish to recurring when he receives opening credits billing. Also, stop add "deceased" to character descriptions, these are fictional characters not real people and we write about fiction in present tense. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So, I agree with your comments. Yes it might be not appropriate to separate the camps since it might happen in season 2. Yes, some characters will switch sides but we can mention that in their description anyways. There is greens and blacks, (watch the trailer of ep.10, read the title of ep. 9 and 10. What to do with dead fictional characters if we can't write their ultimate demise? I will still ask to consider separating greens and blacks not now but maybe after season 1 ends. We can't really separate them on the basis of location like game of thrones because they constantly changes their living location. I didn't really change their order I added description mentioning the premise which is according to the opening credits. Also I just mentioned blacks first then greens. Then recurring blacks then greens and so on. Kindly consider separating them as they should be maybe after the end of season 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.62.252.85 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Rings of Power's first two episodes had more than 1.25 billion minutes of streaming minutes, compared to more than 780 million for House of the Dragon according to Nielsen and first-party data." Comparing the two-episode premiere of Rings of Power and the third week of HOTD is incredibly arbitrary. The current phrasing at first glance also read like the first two episodes of HOTD only reached 780m minutes, which is obviously not accurate.

We know from Nielsen that episodes 1 and the first few hours of episode 2 were good for 1068m minutes watched. Note that this includes the 327m minutes episode 1 had already brought in during the first few hours counted in the week prior. By week three this had increased to 1849m minutes total. Given all of this, it seems much more prudent to compare the performance of the first two episodes. We can't include the 1849m minutes because we don't know much the third episode contributed. It's also important to keep in mind that any comparisons will cover a vastly different timeframe. So I propose the following, which paints a more accurate picture: "According to Nielsen and first-party data, The Rings of Power's first two episodes had more than 1.25 billion minutes of streaming minutes after three days of availability. In comparison, a few hours after the episode two premiere of House of the Dragon, the show had reached more than 1.06 billion minutes of streaming minutes."

The same section also reads: "According to Nielsen data, The Rings of Power is more popular with older viewers, with more than 70% of viewers being over the age of 35." Without access to the total viewer numbers, we don't know which show was more popular in this age segment. What the article cited actually states is the following: "According to Nielsen data, The Rings of Power has a higher percentage of older viewers, with more than 70% of viewers being over the age of 35." 217.120.0.156 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need more sources to put up for the comparisons. CastJared (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might require some editing to avoid duplicate information, but this article already references "It later estimated that the episode was watched by 10.6 million viewers on HBO Max in the first four days, with the number increasing to 14.5 million when including the viewership on the main HBO channel". That same source also lists 12.6 million US viewers for Rings of Power during the first four days. In fact, this might be the most direct comparison available online. 217.120.0.156 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know that HBO made controversies surrounding it's original programming as a draft, as Draft:HBO controversies. CastJared (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to mention that Criston Cole becomes Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, which happens in Season 1 Episode 9 “The Green Council”, in the cast and characters section? JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say definitely. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, this is a better class of disagreement (for which we thank you), but I must chide both User:CastJared and User:Indagate for both being at 3RR. As opposed to warning you two individually, I thought I'd start a discussion thread, which one of you should have already done (both of you are experienced trusted users) so you can hash things out on talk. Take this as a warning, folks. No more mainspace edits on this dispute from either of you or I will block the offender. Please, discuss yourselves out of trouble. Thanks for all your efforts. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a liberty and weigh in on this dispute, which is unusual for me. Neither of the supplied sources (screenrant nor variety) support the assertion of "June 2024". Screenrant says 2024 and nothing more. Variety says summer 2024 and claims their source says the show will not appear in time for the May 31, 2024 Emmy deadline. Claiming June 2024 is original synthesis, based on just these two sources. This is NOT a reasonable calculation, it's simply an uncited claim. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Euphoria is the same thing as involved, as it claiming October 2024, and clash release dates each. CastJared (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't understand your post. BusterD (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Draft:List of The White Lotus characters, this could end up splitting. CastJared (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This submission has been declined. I am going to remove the proposed split template from the article. — Manticore 01:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking should we give Viserys, Rhaenyra, and Daemon wikipedia articles? HiGuys69420 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]