Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on April 17, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 10, 2017Featured list candidateNot promoted
December 14, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
March 4, 2020Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

IGN Best of 2012[edit]

I noticed these, they're not an award show but recognition of a sort. Are they worth listing here or is there somewhere else they can go? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Nomination counts include wins?[edit]

The article currently does not include awards Game of Thrones won in its nominations count. My understanding is that when doing superlatives ('Who's received the most nominations', etc.), most awards organizations include wins as a subset of nominations, adding them to the nominations count, as a subject must first be nominated in order to win the award. Some featured lists that do this:

I don't agree with that at all, it skews the numbers heavily. Nominations converted to wins should only be counted as wins, basic math can do the rest. It'd also make it difficult to develop the ratio of wins/losses percentage in the opening table and I think that is more informative than added wins to nominations. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change it[edit]

This page should be more organized like how Breaking Bad is and any other big tv show or artist award section.

I tried to do this but Darkwarriorblake just undid it. --AffeL (talk) :13:02, 18 July 2015 (EST)

You've already changed the table and it was reverted, next time discuss it so you don't waste so much of your time. The existing format has been present since the beginning and it is what is best for the article, your previous argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason for change, and not one of your edits is explained either making it difficult to nigh impossible to know what changes are being made.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for Emmys 2013 to be corrected[edit]

The show actually had 17 Emmy nominations in 2013. I was counting the nominations in the table further down and I've checked this thoroughly while researching on different other sites. The main reason seems to be that having only 16 as I suppose is the missing category "Outstanding Interactive Program" which doesn't appear on the Internet movie database (this could be a main source for almost all other sites citing 16 nominations). Could please someone check this, too,?! UPDATE: Okay, the infobox at the top right corner shows the total sum with a difference of 2 nominations when counting all years' nominations one by one. I have found that in 2014 the show earned 20 instead of 19 nominations. So I am going to correct this now. Protossdesign (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

@Darkwarriorblake: Please explain your blatant opposition towards the proposed readability of this article, and restoring blocky barely-accessible tabular content, and also reverting edits by contributing editors only to reinstate it yourself. Alex|The|Whovian 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD before engaging in a Edit War. The purpose of the table is to place at hand instant sortability of all awards, in one table a user can instantly see all wins by a particular person or subject, all wins, all noms, all particular types of awards, etc, etc. Unless you have some evidence of people struggling to read the existing table en masse, then a broad and unfounded statement about readability is null and void and thus WP:STATUSQUO. As for reverting edits to reinstate it? You deliberately enacted a large scale change THEN filled in the refs. So I had to undo the content to restore the original, then re-do the refs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, my brief interaction with you has not painted a brilliant picture. You made a broad and significant change to the page, and when reverted instead of discussing it you just put it back in place. When pointed to the relevant WP:BRD policy, you reverted again with slight changes and accused me of OWNERSHIP which is a fairly significant accusation to just throw around, especially when it had been set out on this page why your edit was undone both times. You have claimed you are improving readability, you cite no support for this, no examples of why this is a better format or examples of successful implementations elsewhere. I disagree fundamentally with the changes. Especially collapsing the table that is the sole focus of the entire article, it is a LIST of awards. The change you made by adding year headers also breaks the sortability, this is a known flaw with the tables, it cannot cope with table-wide headers anywhere but at the top of the table. Please stop your disruptive editing and engage in conversation or you will be addressed to the relevant administrators. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VES award-year errors[edit]

While updating various articles linked to the Visual Effects Society Awards 2015 page that still had "pending" template tags in their tables, I noticed all of the VES listings here are "off" by one year in their placement. (The VES 2016 awards cycle isn't until next year; the latest entries should shift up to "2015", and so on, cascading up the table through 2012.)

I'm currently handling simple edits on a pocket Android device, so if someone with a mouse-friendly GUI wants to cut & paste all the VES table entries involved, feel free to jump in! — DennisDallas (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awards missing[edit]

Hello guys, I noticed some awards missing from the list, but because I am inexperienced in edits on Wikipedia I ask of you to correct it. First of all I apologize if the writing is confusing as I am using Google Translate. First, I want to inform you that pulled the 5 2015 SFX Awards, because did not have a fitting reference (a reference which appeared showed only that GoT had been nominated for something, but even showed the categories), if somebody finds a correct reference to correct my change please. Well, I noticed that 4 wins are missing from the list: Guinness for most pirated series[1]; two VES Awards in 2012[2] (look in the year 2011 at this link, victories in the categories Outstanding Created Environment in a Broadcast Program or Commercial and Outstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Broadcast Program, and nomination in Outstanding Animated Character in a Broadcast Program or Commercial); Kerrang Awards for Best TV Show in 2014[3]. I do not know if this is relevant Kerrang, but as I account in the list to win the same in 2012, it would be interesting to put this 2014. Also, I ask you to correct the total number of wins in the top of the page. In all, congratulations for the exceptional work to keep this organized page, updated and truthful references. NymerosMartell 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well AffeL, you put back victories in 2015 SFX but the reference you are putting shows nothing about the winners, even on points which GoT categories was nominated! Do not you think that a statement with five victories without reference strip the credibility of the page? Think about it. But if you have a reference point that really GoT earned SFX 2015 onths, please share it, because I would like to add these victories on IMDb.And the total number of wins listed in the list is 179, not 180. NymerosMartell 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to nominated instead, as we atleast already know it's been nominated. AffeL (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2016

Thanks dude. It remains the most award-winning history! :D NymerosMartell 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Wow, I did not know that EWwy. But you forgot the Best Supporting Actress, Drama for Natalie Dormer[4]. Oh, and the total number of nominations in the list are 507, not 510 as as stated at the beginning of the page. NymerosMartell 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2014/9/jennifer-lawrence-game-of-thrones-frozen-among-new-entertainment-record-holders-in-guinness-world-records-2015-book-60021/
  2. ^ https://www.visualeffectssociety.com/awards/ves
  3. ^ http://www.kerrang.com/18961/relentless-kerrang-awards-2014-winners-list/
  4. ^ http://www.ew.com/gallery/ewwy-awards-2013-meet-your-10-winners/656006_best-supporting-actress-drama

I'm back(Change it!)[edit]

Again, this article/list should be way more organized like how Breaking Bad or any other big tv show/artists award article is. Instead of having all the awards filled up on one single table. It should be different tables for different awards(Like one for Emmys, one for Golden Globe, one for SAG and so on).

Example:

Last time, which was a long time ago. Darkwarriorblake did not let me change it for some reason.(Here:[[2]] & [[3]]). I am willing to do it all by myself. I just need some kind of "permission".

@Twotimer17, Calibrador, Jclemens, Emir of Wikipedia, TedEdwards, and AlexTheWhovian: What do you guys think? - AffeL (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's a good idea, but good luck with it. Darkwarriorblake reverted me when I attempted to split the tables as well (edit, revert). The discussion of it still remains on this page at #Recent changes. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, do it. TedEdwards (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby give you "permission", or rather consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for it. Twotimer17 (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why should it be that way? What benefit does it offer when you can organise every single award by result, type, actor, and year? This table gives you every single thing you could ever want at the click of a header over a bunch of disjointed tables that you'd have to manually search. Not one of you has given a reason for changing it.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no time limit on this, in the face of disagreement the status quo remains, you were bold, I reverted it. It's sensible to discuss first rather than have discussion and have to undo all your edits wasting your time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to make clear here, the articles linked, only one of them is a featured list and it was made that way in 2007. Stuff changes, things update and modernise, no reason has been established to change what is already here or why multiple tables are superior to a single table. And your opening gambit discussion is bias and misleading, I didn't undo your edit for no reason, a reason was given, you disagree with it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have you. The award table was a mess. You don't have OWNERSHIP of the content of this article. if you do not engage in a conversation. Then you will be addressed to a administrators. - AffeL (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reason was literally given in the comment you replied to - "What benefit does it offer when you can organise every single award by result, type, actor, and year? This table gives you every single thing you could ever want at the click of a header over a bunch of disjointed tables that you'd have to manually search.". I'm literally engaging in discussion now. So feel free to report me to the administrators so they can tell you you're wasting their time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look: Wikipedia:Featured lists#Awards. Every single Feature has the table like that. - AffeL (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because they're doing it that way (And Im not clicking every article), doesn't mean it is the best way, it means that's the way it WAS done. Something new has been tried here and you've still not given a reason that it's wrong beyond "Other articles are this way", that doesn't mean that those choices are right, I'm asking for a genuine, logistical, demonstrable reason, that this table is worse than having 30 separate tables. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Users: @Twotimer17, Jclemens, Emir of Wikipedia, TedEdwards, and AlexTheWhovian: all agreed on the changes. and they are regular editers on Game of Thrones related articles. Who are you?. Why do you have more power and have a bigger say than any single on of us. - AffeL (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you're summoning people to help you now, which is against the rules. If you think your way is right, I don't see why you can't just give a reason why it is. I've never said I'm better than Jclements or Alex, I disagree with the opinion and no reason has been given for a change. Instead of summoning people to help fight your battle for you, try answering the question. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: What rule says to not get consensus? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you deliberately summon people of a particular opinion to a discussion to gain a consensus, you're deliberately trying to sway it in your favour, which is against the rules for gaining consensus. You're not allowed to do it for RFCs or FAN or GAN either, you're meant to be unbias and invite everyone including those who might disagree with you. So when he launches a personal attack on me and pings two users he knows favours his side (not that they are going to personally attack me), that's bias and deliberately trying to skew the discussion/outcome. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am "summoning" in regular editors of Game of Thrones related articles. You are not a regular editor of this article or any GoT artilce. So what are you doing here? - AffeL (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a regular editor Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was tagged by the OP. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the topic of changes, could we have percentage of successful nominations? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwarriorblake: AffeL has consensus, since you're the only editor is against the change, absolute unamity is not required to gain consensus (see WP:Consensus). TedEdwards (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More than 24 hours and the opinion of CANVASSED editors is required for consensus, as is awaiting the result of the below RFC. There was no reason for you to be a douche and readd Affel's edits when we are not on a time limit and can await the outcome of the RFC, the actually neutral and broadly applied RFC. But you made that choice, and you can wear that douche brand. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also try actually reading the consensus page when you cite it. The second sentence is "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." So the above, which does constitute nothing more than a vote and no opinions, isn't a consensus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion is that readers can look at each award. A summary is provided with overall rates though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the consensus is clearly to move to the new format. If User:Darkwarriorblake doesn't like it, reverting against consensus is disruptive. Starting an RfC doesn't suspend consensus. Nor do unfounded accusations of bad faith: I challenge Darkwarriorblake to provide evidence that AffeL had any reason to believe I (or any of the other editors ping'ed) would support him in the reformatting question. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: More than 24 hours and the opinion of CANVASSED editors is required for consensus? What happened to There is no time limit on this? And it seems that you are the only one fighting against this. Remember: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Time limit to make the change, not time limit for discussion, you know exactly what was meant. I'm the only person aware of the discussion (in a single day of it's opening) that wasn't canvassed Alex, and you know damn well that is true. Even the admin involved was canvassed by a non-neutral cry for help on his page. And remember, Consensus does not mean people voting, it means actually providing reasoning and forming a result from discussion. I'm also the only person discussing it, Affel just yells and plays the victim, and any other response is "consensus says make the change" with no reason why the change should be made. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only came here to put across my view that I'd support such a move. Either way, I don't care. See my suggestion in the RfC. I'm not actually following this page anymore, so do what you will. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Awards table format[edit]

This discussion is about the formatting of the awards table on the page.

  • Option A is to maintain the current single table. The reasoning given is that the table is sortable, allowing a user to sort through all of the awards, by year, type, recipient and outcome, allowing easier searching of particular items, for instance all awards won by Peter Dinklage.
  • Option B is to use multiple tables as found in many other list articles, separating the awards by type, i.e. a table for Emmy's, a table for Golden Globes, etc, with the table focusing on that particular brand of awards.

A RFC is requested for input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Toss a coin. I'm indifferent. The single table is sortable, but the sectioned format is easier to navigate. There's a point to be made for either approach. (Disclaimer: AffeL informed me about this discussion.)  Sandstein  17:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate the tables, and then, if necessary, add <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags around the separate tables, and re-merge the main table in a collapsed section. That should be acceptable for both parties. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlexTheWhovian: Could you please do this edit so we can see how it actually looks? If it looks good then I agree that will be the best option. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really have anything to say against either, perhaps except that sortability is usually a good thing. Also, wouldn't having 2 tables be redundant? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Seperating the tables essentially forces sorting by whatever method they are seperated by, rather than the complete choice of all parameters offered by the sortable table. Pppery 16:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4 months later ... Pppery 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 91 external links on List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the lead[edit]

As far as I have heard stuff that are already sourced in the body of the article should not be sourced again in the lead. But I have no problem with having repetitive sources in the lead if others think we should. - AffeL (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning AlexTheWhovian and AffeL Please stop. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped ages ago, the other editor has since started a discussion. -- AlexTW 22:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Game_of_Thrones&oldid=1195152008"