Talk:Jon Snow (character)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Picture

I've been getting some heat for uploading an Amok image, even though I credited him. I've sent him an e-mail asking his permission, so don't delete them until I get an answer from him.--CyberGhostface 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I sent him an e-mail asking about the pictures. He responded.
"I'm not sure about Dany's image, because (c) on that portrait belongs to FFG. You can use my Portrait Gallery - no problem, as long as you credited it, but I can't give you the permission to use the images I've done for other companies. Sorry about that."
Amok allowed the ASOIAF portraits to be used under the GFDL. I'm uploading them all. Ausir 03:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I was told later by someone else that if he does, anyone can use them without permission.--CyberGhostface 13:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Theories about Jon's mother

I trimmed the section to remove speculation about the Rhaegar/Lyanna theory. I don't think that a fan theory, even a widely supported one, deserves mention in an encyclopedia article about the character. I did leave in the link to a page that mentions it, though. Brendan 22:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It was only a passing reference; the article did not even go into depth explaining or discussing the theory. And it isn't really speculation. The theory isn't based on conjecture, but rather deduced from the facts we're presented with in the book. I think it deserves a mention. Hairouna 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether the article goes into depth is beside the point; the theory is appropriate to mention or it's not. And until it is confirmed in the text, it is in fact speculation, as are both the theories currently mentioned in the article. Lots of people have pet theories about who's related to whom and who's going to do what, frequently deduced from facts mentioned in the books, but they don't belong in encyclopedic articles. The difference with Wylla and Ashara Dayne is that those are at least discussed in the book, and are thus from a notable source. Until it's mentioned in the series, or in a reputable critical article, it's just fancruft without notability. Brendan 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What would you consider a "reputable critical article"? Hairouna 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"Reputable" was not the best word, and it's not really about what ~I~ would prefer so much as about what's appropriate for Wiki. "Notable" would be a better word. Until it pops up in the series, R+L=J is a critical theory, equivalent to literary analysis, and needs to have notability on its own merits. I can't recall R+L=J being mentioned anywhere outside of fan sites, and I don't see how those meet general encyclopedic standards. Brendan 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "notability on its own merits"? Do you mean someone of note has to support it? Or do you mean it has to make sense, be the most plausible theory, explain most of the available data etc?
And what would meet general encyclopaedic standards? Relevance to the article? Reasonable support? Popularity? Stating only facts the books and the author make absolutely explicit? Hairouna 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Rather than going into a lot of various issues, I'm going to focus on the important part: notability. The relevant policy is WP:N, the very first line of which is: "A topic has notability if is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency." Jon Snow is notable because he's a major character in a best-selling series, and so an article describing him based on the facts presented in the series is acceptable for Wikipedia. The idea that Ashara Dayne or Wylla was Jon Snow's mother is a fact presented in the series; it's explicitly part of the information we have about the character. That Lyanna might be his mother, on the other hand, is nowhere directly suggested (no one says "Maybe his mother was really..."). It's a theory, one that many readers may not know about, and not yet an undeniable part of the series. As such, there needs to be a separate proof that the possibility is "known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency," and a notable source (see WP:V and WP:RS) presenting it, for it to warrant inclusion. Brendan 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You omitted an important part of the page on notability. It reads relevantyl "A topic has notability if is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency or should be because of its particular importance or impact." This, I suppose, is to allow for wikipedia articles to popularise unpopular theories, concepts, ideas or material that are restricted to a particular group but which others should know about. As such, R+L=J is notable because the theory is both important and has a sizable possible impact.
That being said, the only other issues are the ones you linked to: verifiability and reliable sources. Verifiability is no problem; that link to the Tower of the Hand's article shows that the work is not original and may be verified by consulting the book and the text the article cites. The site is probably as reputable a publisher as one can expect for a fantasy series apart from the author's official statements (speaking of which: Martin has left the issue of R+L=J open). That source can also count as a reliable source since it draws heavily on material from the books.
Finally - and this is not my main point, just something to consider - compare this with the article on Loras saying that "...it has been strongly implied that he was in a homosexual relationship with Renly Baratheon." This idea is arguably more obscure and less important than the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. Hairouna 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That clause cannot be intended to allow articles "to popularise unpopular theories etc;" that would be making Wikipedia into a soapbox, which it is not. I don't know quite what it means, but I imagine the intention is to cover obscure topics of clear import to history or the lives of many people. Taking this clause as a license for fan theory seems a bit of a stretch; at that level, it basically disavows the notion of notability entirely by allowing anything someone wishes to claim as important. There's no explicit policy on the issue, though, so if you really feel strongly that the theory warrants a mention, I won't complain further. :)
You're right about the Loras/Renly thing; I missed that bit when going through the articles recently to remove speculative material. If R+L=J were to be deleted, that ought to be removed as well. Brendan 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I agree in a sense. I should've qualified what I said to specificy unpopular theories with reasonable or overwhelming evidence.
And thanks for the discussion. I learned a bit. Hairouna 03:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I might disagree about reasonable or overwhelming, but I think we've spent enough words on this as it is. ;) Thanks to you too for keeping it civil (not that I thought you wouldn't, but still)! Brendan 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Aiight then. Final thanks for correcting my silly mistakes and polishing the article. Peace. :P Hairouna 03:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Need for this Page

Jon's section in House Stark is longer than this article. The only unique thing here is the section on Jon's parentage, and that has a dubious place in Wikipedia already. Do we really need a separate page for Jon? --Captain Crawdad 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No we do not. And I agree that fan theories do not belong on wikipedia, which is a record of fact, not speculation. Indrian 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I have now proposed that this page be merged into House Stark. Any further comments relating to the merger should be made under the appropriate topic on the House Stark talk page. Indrian 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As currently written, this article is simply incorrect.

Jon Snow is very likely not the bastard son of Eddard Stark. It's bizarre that the article states that with no qualifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.31.36 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually he is. The identity of his true parentage is revealed in A Dance With Dragons. Where did this idea come from? BrianFG (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Where did that idea come from? Jon's parentage is still very much unconfirmed by the end of ADwD. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
He's probably referring to the tale told to Davos about Eddard and the fisherman's daughter. I highly doubt it is true either. This, however, is an encyclopedia, which is based on reliable sources and does not delve too deeply into theories about fictional universes. R+L=J may be true and it may not, but fan analysis in essays and on message boards does not belong in an encyclopedia. Martin will reveal the true parentage eventually, and then wikipedia can make note of it. Indrian (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
An adopted bastard is still a bastard, regardless of parentage. Even if he's not got a drop of Stark "blood" in him, Ned took him, Ned raised him, he's Ned's bastard. Just like Ghost is Jon's direwolf.
Unless there's some theory that lonely Jon knocked up a drunk wolf one night, then crossbowed her into silence, before staging it to look like a Baratheon hit, so Ned would subconsciously go to King's Landing and kill the man who killed Jon's favourite dad, and Jon could keep his favourite cub.
Then it's a bit different, but he's still Ned's bastard. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

out-of-character actor image

Because using out-of-character actor photos as illustrations of characters makes no sense, I have removed the OOC actor photo. Copyright-free images of either a drawing/illustration of the character or of the actor in character - if they can be found/acquired - would be very welcome additions to the article.--TyrS 06:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Jon snow parentage

I do understand that the L + R = J is a popular fan theory that may end up being correct. But at the end of the day, it may not, there are other potential matchings for Jon Snow's parents that are equally plausible. I think it is a bit dangerous to include speculation on theories that are not 100% confirmed in universe. Eric the fever (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The point of having the current bit in the article is not to assert who the character's parents are, the point is that notable sources have reported that people are speculating about this topic. This particular Jon Snow bit gained some traction recently but if there are other theories or other debated topics for that matter that have great citations, I'd like to see them brought here or to other ASOIAF articles, as applicable. The fact that mainstream audiences are interested in these topics lends notability to our articles, which desperately need them. Off the top of my head I can't think of something else that has been talked about in this way recently, including whether or not Jon is dead.— TAnthonyTalk 03:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

On Slynt

Jon does know that Slynt betrayed Ned. In the chapter where Slynt is executed, Jon thinks, "There is blood between us. This man helped slay my father" and "I am giving you a chance, my lord. It is more than you ever gave my father." All the same, I'm not going to restore the phrase "avenging his father," because that makes it sound like Jon is motivated primarily by revenge, and the text doesn't confirm that. I don't think there's any way to capture the ambiguity of Jon's motivations here without expanding the text more than the topic deserves, so it's probably best left as is. Brendan Moody (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Article title

The current article title - Jon Snow (A Song of Ice and Fire) - breaks the rules defined in WP:NCDAB. Really it should be titled something like Jon Snow (character). Anyone got any objections if I rename it? Atlas-maker (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Given no objections, I will move to Jon Snow (character) Atlas-maker (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The real problem is the set up for GOT wiki characters. Almost unprecedented, TV viewers don't want to be subject to the 'spoilers' from the books. If there's a possibility they will, they won't click on the wiki link. So just a plain Jon Snow description doesn't say if it's from the book or TV or both. Really, you should have two separate descriptions ("Jon Snow--TV series" and "Jon Snow--character in a Song of Ice and Fire series"), such as exist in long running TV or movies series sometimes when they are not exactly the same as the book series. (Jack Ryan is a good example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.236 (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would a viewer invested enough to fear spoilers be here in the first place if not for further info, the stuff the shows didn't tell? The whole point of an encyclopedia is to learn things we didn't know. Wider than Wikipedia is the rule of not asking if you don't want to know. Clicking on an article clearly about Jon Snow is the same as asking for it. Curiosity kills cats, but that's not our fault. Not our concern if people don't click, either. We're not aiming for traffic dollars, we're trying to teach people what they want to know.
The difference of character and story between books and TV is very slight (compared to guys like Locke), and the two articles would be largely redundant. One would have a longer history and the other would have Kit Harrington's facial expression, but they'd likely be merged back soon. Consider how many versions of Batman, Mary Magdalene or Sherlock Holmes there are, and how few articles. They're all just layers/facets/pieces of the same idea and belong in one comprehensive article, under a natural title. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I for one check character info WHILE I'm watching a show to find out more about them. Often (especially with something as complex as GOT) I forget some details of the backstory or previous episodes (eg "why is he there?" or "how is she related to this other character?"). At the same time, I don't freak out about spoilers. Knowing what is going to happen to a character doesn't stop my enjoyment of watching. Additionally, the Wikipedia articles on plot for TVs and movies conveniently go in chronological order so you can read the first few paragraphs and STOP. Meanwhile, the individual show wikis (eg The Walking Dead) have status such as "DEAD" right in the infobox, so you can't avoid spoilers. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if this article should simply be titled Jon Snow, per WP:Primary topic. See, for example, this complaint at the Jon Snow article about the British journalist. I think that the vast majority of people who visit that article are looking for the Games of Thrones character. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The British Journalist was alive before the books were written. I believe preference is usually given to real people rather than fictional characters. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not how WP:Primary topic works. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2015

Jon learns that his sister 'SANSA' is being married to Ramsay Bolton so that the Boltons may claim Winterfell. Unaware that the bride is actually Jeyne Poole, Jon sends Mance to rescue her while Stannis marches on Winterfell. Jon later receives a letter from Ramsay claiming that Stannis has been defeated and Mance is a prisoner. Ramsay demands hostages, else he will march on the Wall and kill Jon. Jon decides to seek out and kill Ramsay himself, but he is stabbed repeatedly by an intimate cabal of Night's Watch brothers who oppose him 24.43.227.7 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Nope. You are confusing the book and the show. Indrian (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as above comment and lack of WP:RS - Arjayay (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sansa

The article about Sansa Stark says that Sansa married Ramsay. --Jala38 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and that is in a section about her character in Season 5 of the TV series. The related section of this article deals with the novels, as the Sansa storyline in the TV series is not directly relevant to Jon.— TAnthonyTalk 23:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Jon Snow moved to Jon Snow (journalist). It's usually too big a leap to go directly from one primary topic to another, so there is no primary topic. The character is only 20 years old. Perhaps within another two or three decades, as memories of the journalist begin to fade, the character will transition to primary topic, if it proves to have enduring notability. I'll disambiguate links before redirecting to John Snow (disambiguation). wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


– The clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. Especially as the character has global notability, while the news presenter is known only in the UK.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support the second move, at the very least, the presenter should be disambiguated. If this character isn't the primary topic, then the base name should redirect to the disambiguation page -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The news reader is a relative unknown in the world, as opposed to the fictional character. Whether or not that is a good thing for the world is another story, but it is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:D09B:D3C8:211C:D6F1 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence has been provided for the assertions in this nom. Disambiguation would be preferable to a move. AusLondonder (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah i see from your user page that you are British. My main point is about about global notability, for while the news presenter may well be more popular in the UK, he is not known at all anywhere else.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Why is it clear? your link doesn't seem to support that assertion... or am I missing something? Also, global notability?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
When you count the books in the results of the serach defined above, it is 10:25 in favour of the journalist. Just saying. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I seem to see an roughly equal coverage: [[2]] [[3]]  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment on data: As I responded below when you go through the particular hits, it it 45 hits for the character ("jon snow" game of thrones) and some 197 hits for the journalist ("jon snow" news) even though ca 20 of the hits are need to be deducted as they are not about the journalist. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
and google trends supports the character overwhelmingly [[4]].  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: The fictional character is obviously the primary topic, and I pointed this out before (above). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The evidence above is clear and convincing. The argument that the newsreader has more longterm significance doesn't hold water; the character dates to 1996, only seven years after the other Snow became truly famous (in one part of the world). Calidum ¤ 05:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I haven't really decided where I fall on this as yet, but let's not operate under the misconception that this character was widely known in the mainstream before the TV series took off in 2011, despite the bestselling status of the novels. And is it established that current Google hits are the indicator of a primary topic? If the show introduced a character named Jessica Savitch, we would likely be having this same discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 04:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose first move per In ictu oculi books show that the journalist is the more important long term subject, and has been a major figure in British journalism for over 30 years. Also no objection to the second move to (journalist), if a redirect is created to John Snow dablist. Definitely should be (journalist) rather than (news reader/presenter). There is also of course the notable doctor John Snow (physician), one of the founding fathers of modern medicine. Pincrete (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
in Britian, maybe. Anywhere else? no. The fact is that the character is the primary topic by a massive margin in 99% of places around the world. Honestly, google trends even shows the character to be the primary topic by a large margin even in the UK.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Google trends/Google hits does not necessarily establish long-term encyclopedic significance, which necessarily has a subjective element to it. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The journalist is a local figure with no wider importance. The character is the primary topic. Dimadick (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the character being primary topic but happy to support the second move and a dab page, per Insertcleverphrasehere's book comparison above. The two characters are rather equal in notability - a major real life newsreader, with long term significance, vs a major character in a popular book and TV series. I see no primary topic either way, so redirect or make Jon Snow a dab page.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Of the books that support the journalist, they only have significance and notability in one location (the UK), whereas the sources that support the character have worldwide notability. I feel like this has been made clear, moreover i see that you completely ignored the google trends data that shows that the character is the primary topic even in the UK.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, so having significance and notability in the UK doesn't count then? That seems a fairly odd point of view considering the UK is one of the major English speaking countries of the world and this is the English Wikipedia. Maybe you'd prefer it to be called the American Wikipedia? As for trends, we precisely don't follow trends. That's why Apple is a fruit, not a company. I think a disambig page is the best compromise between the long standing primary topic anx the recent popular book character. Do you not agree?  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't. As I have said it isn't even clear that the journalist is the primary topic even in the uk. And for the record, I live in New Zealand.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure how I feel about this one, so I'm not !voting yet. I do think that if we were simply looking at short term usage the need for the move would be obvious. But it's harder to say whether the character will retain that level of usage following the end of the show in 2017/2018, and whether a fictional character from a TV show that's largely treated as plot-driven entertainment has greater enduring notability and educational value than a prominent real-world journalist. I'll also echo TAnthony's point about the character's true popularity being fairly recent, and therefore much more likely to be ephemeral than if he had actually been a figure of general interest for 20 years. Brendan Moody (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose move of this article; Jon Snow should become a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the character being primary topic. Insertcleverphrasehere's evidence from Gbooks is that there is no clear primary topic here, so I support making Jpn Snow a dab page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment on data: If you mean "I seem to see an roughly equal coverage: [[5]] [[6]]  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)", when you go through the hits, it it 45 hits for the character ("jon snow" game of thrones) and some 197 hits for the journalist ("jon snow" news) even though some of the hits are about the character and need to be deducted. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
not really sure where you are getting these numbers... certainly not from the links i provided. could you please elaborate?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  13:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
From the links you provided. When you go through the results, page by page, until you reach the last one that shows results, i.e. specific books. Depending on your google settings, it will tell you the final number of hits/books (not that "about 2000-something hits" displayed on the first page), or you have to count them manually (typically the number of pages minus one, multiplied by 10, plus the number of hits on the last page). However, the results may vary, depending, for example, on the country you access them from. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Journalist as primary topic: I'll immediately clarify, I am from Britain, so take my comment with that in mind. While I appreciate the character's global reach, I would argue the journalist -- the longest-running presenter of Channel 4 News, one of the most noteworthy and accessible news sources in the UK (further, until the relatively recent switch to digital, it really wasn't uncommon for some to only have the initial 5 channels) -- holds more long-term significance. Looks at Google hits fails to convince me that the character should become primary even considering a more common usage in America. Similarly, while the character is well-known, I would not consider them yet as iconic enough, at least as far as mainstream pop culture goes, to realistically hold more "educational value" than the presenter. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Further, to add to why I think Google hits are a poor indicator here. The majority of internet users -- to say nothing of active people willing to edit Wikipedia and add complaints -- are young and with relative well access to and interest in works like Game of Thrones (which is when the character begins becoming more well-recognised), and do not generally talk about newsreaders. To take that as worldwide significance, when one subject becomes heavily notable in 1989 and the other in 2011 (the debut of the TV series), would be heavily flawed. The character of Jon Snow would likely be unheard of for older generations, at least outside of America. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree about the age argument, younger readers are far more likely to follow the show. However, this still would only make the news reader the primary topic in Britain, and then only for older people (probably 30-35+). This is a very small group of people compared to the vast majority of the rest of the world who have never heard of the news reader, and may or may not have heard of the character (based on age). As a result, when you compare the people who have heard of the character, and the people who have heard of the journalist, the former vastly outweighs the latter (although perhaps not in Britain. There is a small argument to be made that we should therefore have Jon Snow redirect to a dab page as a sort of compromise between the brits here that want the newsman to be the PT and the rest of us, but the argument that the journalist is the primary topic overall is absolutely without merit and Britain-centric to the point of ignoring the rest of the english speaking world (as stated above I am from New Zealand). I personally still think that the relative size of the groups of people interested in each topic should mean that the character is the primary topic by a wide margin.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment on data: So far even the data you have provided are not convincing. Anyway, the current surge in google hits owes its existence to the cliffhanger, and I think it will diminish after his fate is revealed. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose moves from an Australian GoT fan. A long-serving journalist with integrity who has reported on war, torture, and disease just has more encyclopedic significance than the fictional character. Although the journalist is not well-known outside Britain, his influence nevertheless extends beyond Britain, as evidenced by the >250 articles in this international encyclopedia that link to his biography. Also, I strongly oppose making Jon Snow a disambiguation page, as that makes things worse for some readers (those wanting the journalist will have to click through an extra page), without making things better for any readers (those wanting the character will still have to click through a page they don't want, same as now). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Adrian J. Hunter: Your argument against disambiguation is rather flawed. Most of the time people will get to a wikipedia page via google (where a dab page doesn't appear and a disambiguated title makes it certain that the reader gets to the article they wanted to anyway on the first try), or they get there using the wikipedia search bar, in which case, again, disambiguated titles mean that readers will most often choose the article they wanted to get to in the first place. When looking at page views of doubly disambiguated titles such as this one, they generally show that readers very rarely visit the disambiguation page, even when it is at the base title, rather choosing the topic they wanted in the first place. Thus, disambiguation pages at the base title rarely actually inconvenience readers.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Insertcleverphrasehere, I hadn't realised that. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both moves per Cuchullain, above. Over the past 6 months, the character has received 3-4 times the number of views, which means he is the WP:PTOPIC in, indeed, a WP:TWODABS situation. On top of this, the character has been "dead" and the show not on-air during that time period. I expect the difference to increase as we head into GOT's 6th season airing and (sooner, or later?) the 6th book's release. --Izno (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Millionth One -- CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate both. This is one of the many instances where different criteria could support different primary topics, so the best solution is not to have a primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 22:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by nominator for closer

It seems that there is mostly a consensus on moving the journalist to Jon Snow (journalist), and the consensus is split on whether the character is deserving of the primary topic (generally based on British/non-British lines, although not exclusively). I think all that can be said has been said, this has run rather long, and as a compromise I suggest that the closer consider simply making Jon Snow the dab page, leaving this page where it is, and disambiguating the journalist. I think this to be the most practical solution for the time being. At such a time that the character becomes the overwhelming primary topic, even in Britain, the move can be considered again. I hope this helps and satisfies mostly everyone.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

Rhaegar

Obviously we all think we know now that Rhaegar is Jon Snow's father, but in the actual TV series it has only been explicitly revealed that Lyanna is his mother. And yet, we know the show has been hinting for years, as shown by the clips collected here. I believe that based on our most basic rules of WP:Verifiability, we should not be updating all the GoT infoboxes and family trees with Rhaegar as Jon's father, and I think most established editors agree. But I also believe we should reach some kind of consensus about it, considering that some journalistic sources are obviously connecting the dots and stating Rhaegar as fact. This situation is similar to one with Kylo Ren; random editors were assuming his birth name is Ben Solo, but neither the film, the novelization or other canon materials ever called him anything other than Ben, though many third party sources naturally assumed he was Ben Solo. Consensus kept the related articles with simply "Ben" (an arduous battle against IP editors, I assure you LOL) until, of all things, the Force Awakens Little Golden Book came out in April 2016 and established the "Solo". This is basically the same situation.— TAnthonyTalk 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And to quote KetchupRevenge on the Kylo topic: "Wikipedia is not actually about truth, it is about citable content. Even if it's common sense for his name to be Solo (which it is common sense), it's not citable, therefore actually violates Wikipedia's policy regarding original research." — TAnthonyTalk 18:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the following HBO post establishes Rhaegar to my satisfaction:

  • "See the Connections Behind Ned's Promise With This Infographic". MakingGameofThrones.com (HBO). June 28, 2016. Archived from the original on June 29, 2016. Retrieved June 29, 2016.

Thanks Asparagus648.— TAnthonyTalk 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jon Snow (character)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Grabbing for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Lead: The first paragraph could have a nice pattern to it - at the moment, you talk about the book, then the show, then the book again. If you added after the second book mention that the character is also a main character who has appeared in every season of the TV show then you'd have a nice back and forth flow between the book/show.
  • Could do with a line thrown in about his parentage, since you've got a section in the article which isn't summarised in the lead.
  • While you've got the plot from the books covered in the second paragraph, it would be worthwhile saying in the third paragraph that the TV series covers pretty much the same arc for the character, and then summarise where it leads on from the books. Although I hold my hands up, because when the next book comes out, you might as well come back and move that information back into the second paragraph. But since you've got a couple more books and a couple more seasons over which to summarise this, you'll need to keep on top of it anyway.
  • Overview: I'm not really seeing the difference between this section and Description - I think you can just remove the Overview subsection heading as the two sections cover the same ground and flow naturally into each other. It'll also stop the first paragraph of Overview from seeming like a repeat of similar information from the Description section.
  • Has Martin said anything about his influences when creating Jon? Or has anyone else made any comparisons between Jon and other characters (either real life or fictional)?
  • The David Orr quotes currently in Description and Overview can be combined to the same location. There's no reason to have some praise in one paragraph, and then very similar praise in the other. If you're using it to cite the point of view status mentioned in Overview, then it can still be used to cite that. It'd then be fine to repeat his name and the NYT times when it then appears in the Parentage section.
  • Link The Winds of Winter regarding the book
  • TV adaptation: I've move to the quote about the Emmy nomination down to the Recognition and awards section
  • Does anything need to be said about the actor being retained from the original pilot?
  • Recognition and awards: No need to specify the Gold Derby Awards 2016, as it's already stated in a previous column. Also link to the Gold Derby TV Awards. The article is a stub, but it exists.
  • Cite #6, #46 + #47 - can full publisher and ISBN information be added, similar to cite #30
  • Cite #73: Should be MTV News UK
  • That's everything. A quite interesting read. Miyagawa (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get on these.— TAnthonyTalk 15:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Miyagawa: I have addressed your comments, and also added several items bolstering notability, etc. I didn't think it was notable that Harington was retained from the pilot because only two other actors were recast. I also have been unable to find anything about Martin's creative influences for the character, or comparisons with other characters/figures. I did a lot of work overhauling this article last year and never came across anything in my research, but it's an interesting question that I will continue to look into.— TAnthonyTalk 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@TAnthony: No problem - I had to ask to make sure that the board aspect of the coverage was met. I've made one small tinker with a template, and based on the edits you've made I'm now happy that this meets the Good Article criteria. Therefore I am promoting it as such. Miyagawa (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Broad too. I'm having one of those days. Miyagawa (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Unnamed woman"?

The Parentage section states that Jon is "presented as the illegitimate son of Ned Stark by an unnamed woman". However, none of the immediate sources support this. Furthermore, Ned claims that Jon's mother is "Wylla", both in A Game of Thrones (here) and "Winter Is Coming" (here). Should the article be changed to reflect this, or am I missing something? – Rhain ☔ 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rhain: thanks for pointing this out, I added this info to the article with some third party sources.— TAnthonyTalk 14:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

- Article should be changed to reflect parentage in the series having been confirmed by HBO (here). But it's locked, and I've never bothered making a wiki user account, so hey. -- Some Internet Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.167.78 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The article has been updated to reflect this in the proper sections.— TAnthonyTalk 23:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Father

It says Rhaegar is his father, but in the article is says that's a "theory". Has this actually been stated definitively anywhere? I wasn't even aware that it's been shown that Lyanna is his mother, but I haven't quite finished ADWD yet (I read them once, but have forgotten most everything). BTW, there was wikitext showing in the main article in the "parentage" section; couldn't figure out how to fix it, so I just deleted it. Appeared to be some sort of reference.AnnaGoFast (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The HBO series definitively established Lyanna as his mother, and then published a chart online establishing Rhaegar as the father. This is all cited in the article. I also fixed the broken citation, thanks for catching that.— TAnthonyTalk 23:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok but the family tree and Targaryen arms are in the book section not the hbo section. Really they should be moved into that section. In the books Ned is still Jon's dad (even though we all know he really isn't). There are (believe it or not) book only people out there that have never heard of the rhaegar theory and this could ruin it for them. And it's simply factually innacurate to have it in the book section and use hbo as the citation.

Needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.69.28 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jon Snow (character). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK, added this archived url to citation tagged as a deadlink by the bot.— TAnthonyTalk 03:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Snow (character). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK.— TAnthonyTalk 03:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill in the Parentage section

There is currently too much WP:Citation overkill in the Parentage section. And one instance in the section above that needs a cut too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I think much of this came out of challenges to the notability of the R+L=J theory for inclusion in the article, as well as how the article deals with the TV series' reveal of Jon's parentage (there is no dialogue, just visual juxtaposition). I've trimmed it down to three or less per instance; some of the remaining individual citations have specific value but also have limitations. I'm saving the redundant citations below in case they are needed in the future.
Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 15:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Also these excess citations supporting the phrase "the three popular characters whom fans had missed most from the previous volume, A Feast for Crows":
— TAnthonyTalk 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, TAnthony. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Harington

No critique of the actor? I think he is way overrated. LegendLength (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like all we have so far are award nominations, if you come across any reviews of his performance (positive or negative) I'd be happy to add them to the article. I watch the show but don't usually read weekly recaps or reviews.— TAnthonyTalk 19:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

page must be moved to Aegon Targaryen

I just watched the season 7 finale. The three-eyed raven found out that Jon's name is Aegon Targaryen and that he is the heir of the Iron Throne. This page should be moved. --Aegon Targaryen VI (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Aegon Targaryen VI, see WP:Common name. "Jon Snow" is still the common name of this character. Besides, we don't know if he will take the last name Targaryen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia doesn't go by "real name" of fictional characters, just the name they are the most known by.★Trekker (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There's also the fact that the books might give him a different name. --Madbane54 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Note Related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_28#Aegon_Targaryen. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"General" subheading for the TV adaptation section

TAnthony, I added this subheading, because, like I stated when adding it, the material that is there is easy to overlook from the table of contents without that subheading. And this goes for me as well even though I know what is there. Our readers commonly think that the first subheading contains the first paragraph. The most common example I point to is the Changeling (film) article example. See this, this and this discussion from that article's talk page.

I started this section because I see that you removed the subheading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So sorry to have removed it without comment, I didn't notice when it was added or see the edit summary, and it seemed weird to me. Originally the TV section didn't have a storyline subsection, because the plot matched the books. In any case, you make a good point on the necessity of a subheading; perhaps "Overview"? — TAnthonyTalk 03:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Even though I prefer "General" to "Overview" since the lead is the overview, the "Overview" heading in this case would be a subsection heading and so, yeah, I could support that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I had added a "General" subheading to the Daenerys Targaryen article on the same day. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
But I think such a heading is needed a little more in the case of this Jon Snow article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Well it's an Overview of info about the TV series; "General" just seems especially vague to me, is it often used elsewhere? Are there any other options? Perhaps now that the section is pretty large, we should be breaking it up into proper sections like Casting-Development-Reception and that sort of thing.
I watch all of the GoT character articles but police the current GAs the most carefully.— TAnthonyTalk 04:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I've used the "General" subheading at a number of articles, and I see it around enough; I don't think I started the trend. Anyway, as for examples, I use it at the Todd Manning article, at the Avatar (2009 film) article, at the Rape article, and others. But I have occasionally encountered editors who find it vague or meaningless. When I explain why it's helpful, then they do see my point even if they suggest a different heading. Personally, I don't find it any more vague than "overview." Well, I do find it more general. To me, it automatically means "general information."
But, as for splitting material in that section, I was wondering if it should be divided into subsections. When it comes to moving the material, I was wondering about any of the reception material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and added "Overview" for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
On a side note: I know that this is off-topic, but I'd never watched Changeling. So I went ahead and watched it and finished watching it some minutes ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Snow (character). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK.— TAnthonyTalk 19:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Snow (character). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 03:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK.— TAnthonyTalk 05:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Aegon Targaryen

I understand that it's different in both mediums. But it's a very important detail in the show. So, can we add to the lead section in brackets?; "born Aegon Targaryen in the television series". The Optimistic One (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Temporary protection to this page is needed.

Constantly having to revert due to edit warring, so can an admin protect it please? The Optimistic One (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've requested protection for this article and Catelyn Stark.— TAnthonyTalk 20:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@TAnthony: Cheers. The Optimistic One (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

There's an error 89.153.36.75 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. General Ization Talk 23:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2018

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: no consensus that the character is the primary topic, and thus no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Jon Snow (character) → Jon Snow – Three years ago, Flyer22 brought up this issue, and I would like to sort it now. Jon Snow, a major character of best-selling books and unprecedentedly popular TV series, is the obvious primary meaning. I understand that the journalist Jon Snow is an actual, living person, but that does not give him any precedence as far as I can tell reading the WP:Article titles policy. Article titles should be of service to the readers. I dare say that a vast majority who type in "Jon Snow" expect to find the character and not a disambiguation page. I also suspect that being led to that disambiguation page is rather annoying.
Looking at the page view statistics, Jon Snow (character) had 165,788 views in the past 60 days, while Jon Snow (journalist) had 30,997. Looking at Google and Google Books search results, I find it difficult to find references to the journalist. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Note the previous move discussion. The journalist was the primary topic before April 2016. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I cannot believe I missed that. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – as before, the current WP:2DABS, WP:NOPRIMARY treatment is a better solution for this ambiguous name. The number of hits for the journalist is not tiny. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • But can you demonstrate that there is indeed no primary topic? The answer to WP:Is there a primary topic? seems like yes to me, because "it is highly likely" that Jon Snow the character is the "topic sought when a reader searches for that term". This article is viewed 5 times as often as the article about the journalist. That is not negligible. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      Primarytopic is something we decide, not a fact we try to demonstrate. I say no. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      And that decision should be based on arguments and facts, not arbitrary votes. I have demonstrated how easy it is to demonstrate what people look up more often and what sources, web as well as printed, mention more often. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – as before, the current WP:2DABS, WP:NOPRIMARY works, the real person better known in UK than the cable TV character. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • But the proposed solution would work better, since 85% of the people looking for "Jon Snow" would come directly to the article they want to read. Honestly, I doubt the TV presenter is better known in the UK. If you can elaborate on that, please do. Either way, there is much more to the world than the UK. Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. All evidence shows this is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation. The fictional Jon Snow has been a central character in an extremely well known book and TV series for over two decades. He’s also recognizable globally (including in the UK), whereas the journalist is known mostly in Britain. The journalist will be just as easy to reach from a hat more as a dab page.—Cúchullain t/c 17:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure where I stand on this, but as I said in the previous discussion: let's not operate under the misconception that this character was widely known in the mainstream before the TV series took off in 2011, despite the bestselling status of the novels.— TAnthonyTalk 18:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
That’s not really the point.—Cúchullain t/c 19:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems that Jon Snow (journalist) "has jokingly expressed annoyance at being eclipsed by his more famous, albeit fictional, namesake".[7] Amusing, if not relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The situation might have been different some years ago, and may be different some years from now, but as it stands the interest is pretty lopsided for the fictional character. --RL0919 (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The journalist averages over 660 daily page views, this is not a trivial amount. Meanwhile the disambiguation averages under 60 daily views, so most readers are being guided to the correct page. Since I closed the first RM, I'm notified every time a new link to [[Jon Snow]] is added, while most are for the character, certainly not all are. The journalist is heavily embedded in this encyclopedia, with over 280 links to his biography. We need to balance the possible annoyance of a limited number of readers being directed to the disambiguation, with the likely introduction of errors linking the journalist to the fictional character and implying that the fictional character is a fictional journalist. Right now this is patrolled by Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, after making the charcter primary linking errors are less likely to be timely patrolled. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:Primary topic. No doubt that the vast majority of readers who click on or type in "Jon Snow" are looking for the fictional character. That stated, I don't see much of an issue with the current setup, and WP:Primary topic also talks about a topic being primary if it has long-term significance with regard to "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." On a side: I didn't get pinged above because it's my old username that was linked, but this article is still on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Journalist is regularly seen and recognisable on British television and has been host of Channel 4 News (a popular British news program) for a considerable number of years. Also I personally I don't believe any notable fictional character should be viewed as more important than a notable real person. Madbane54 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support only two items on the DAB page, and the fictional character seems to be the more notable one. Hatnotes should work. I don't feel the benefits of detecting mis-linking outweigh that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The character is clearly more popular and well known globally than the journalist. Calidum 05:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the 2DABs system seems to work, though I support the fictional character Jon Snow being at the top of the DAB page as a possible compromise. JC7V (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The journalist must be known to almost every adult in the UK, both for his journalism and his documentaries and also his charitable work. He is more likely to have lasting significance than a fictional character. The present DAB page works perfectly well, not least because it will collect ambiguous links which will be found and fixed. WP:PTOPICs inevitably collect bad links which are unlikely to get fixed. WP:IFITAINTBROKE. Narky Blert (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Being British, the first thing I think of when "Jon Snow" is the GoT character. However, I do know that the journalist in question in the anchor for Channel 4 news, and therefore is quite well known in the UK. And while I've seen the stat 85% are looking for the character, 15% looking for the journalist is still quite a lot. It's not one of these cases where literally only one or two people are looking for a different page to most (which does happen). And also, disambiguation pages are not hard for readers to deal with. TedEdwards 00:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
TedEdwards, WP:Common name WP:Primary topic states "much more likely than any other single topic." That's obviously the case here. I don't think it's ever the case that only one or two people are looking for a topic on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
You're wrong about it never being the case that only one or two people are looking for a topic; I nominated a move discussion here a few months ago, and if you look at the page view stats I gave in my opening statement, Bill Potts (musician) and Bill Potts (lawyer), they got on average 3 and 2 views respectively in the eight months I gave, and that discussion resulted in no consensus. So in the case about "Jon Snow", you're 5 or 6 times more likely to be looking for the charater, but in the Bill Potts case, you were almost 60 times more likely to be looking for the Doctor Who character than the other 2 articles. In this case, the journalist got 454 views a day on average, which is quite a lot of people looking for that article (actually more than Bill Potts (Doctor Who)). Also, you'll notice the reason why I renominated Bill Potts was because in the previous discussion had consensus to not rename, due to editors not being convinced about the long term significance of the character (she was about to appear in the series), and I renominated several months after Bill Potts' last episode. With Jon Snow, the high page views are likely to be because GoT is approaching its final season, but what will happen after season 8? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we can't guess the page views, say in early 2020, when they could be much lower. btw. it doesn't say anything like that in WP:Common name, so I'm guessing you actually mean WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where it does say that. TedEdwards 18:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
TedEdwards, nah, I don't think it's ever the case that only one or two people are looking for a topic on Wikipedia. A topic might get one or two views in eight months if it's really obscure, but there will be more people looking for the topic eventually. Either way, the WP:Primary topic guideline is clear. And in this case, there is no valid contest between the journalist and the fictional character. I highly doubt there ever will be or that the high views that the fictional character gets are about the final season. The fictional character is simply better known; the fictional character is known globally. But, sure, we can wait...again. And, yes, of course I meant WP:Primary topic instead of WP:Common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
But there is in late 2019 going to be a change of circumstance, GoT will have stopped airing, and potentially a lot of interest in it will have gone. As I cited earlier, we should not being guessing pageviews in the future, but what I can say is there will be a change of circumstance in 2019 which could have an effect on pageviews that we shouldn't be predicting. WP:PTOPIC says that many editors consider in move discussions whether A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Due to a change of circumstance in a couple of months, we've no clue of the significance of the character Jon Snow in the fairly near future, so I remain unconvinced that now is the right time for a move. And whether you highly doubt that the pageviews of the two pages will became closer or the high pageviews are due to the final season is irrelevant; either of those two things could happen, and per WP:CRYSTAL, we shouldn't be guessing if they will or won't happen. TedEdwards 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
TedEdwards, we aren't guessing. As others have noted, it is more than crystal clear that the fictional character is the primary topic. No crystal ball needed. Even when the views go down because new seasons are not airing, that doesn't change what the primary topic is. There is no denying that one is known nationally while the other is known globally. Plus, above, Surtsicna pointed to other cases where the fictional character has the primary title and the real-life person does not. As for "And whether [I] highly doubt that the pageviews of the two pages will became closer or the high pageviews are due to the final season is irrelevant.", you brought it up. The same applies to your beliefs. You are going by "what if?" when there is no sound reasoning at all that the page views in this case could be close, or that the fictional character is leading due to the upcoming final season. The fictional character has been leading for years. And closer is one thing. Close is another. All that stated, I mentioned the long-term significance aspect above; so I understand your argument in that regard, although I doubt that the nationally known subject is going to trump the globally known subject in the long run. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Since we are discussing the future, we might also add that the journalist is not getting any younger. Is his fame going to go up or down with time? Literature lasts. Look at all these people named Romeo and all these named Juliet: athletes, actors, politicians, scientists, etc. You can be the Governor General of Canada, the highest ranking person in the world's second largest country, but a fictional character is still the Romeo. Same with Juliet. It strikes me as unreasonable to suggest that a leading character of a bestselling book series and a record-breaking television series will fade next year when the series ends. And it does not hurt to reiterate that all this discussion is very much UK-centered; in the rest of the English-speaking world, there is only one Jon Snow. Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I've never had a problem where fictional characters are the primary topic, given that they are actually the primary topic. And these discussions should be based on what we know and what we don't know, not what we think will or won't happen, otherwise it breaches WP:CRYSTAL. What we know is GoT will end next year. We know this has the potential to affect the pageviews. We don't know what the effect will be (if any). We know at this moment in time only, the character has many more pageviews than the journalist. That is what should be important in forming a consensus. You think that the character will always have more pageviews than the journalist, but you don't know. You think that if the pageviews go down, the character will still be the primary topic, but you don't know. You said at one point you think the high pageviews aren't due to season 8 coming up, and therefore won't go down afterwards, but you don't know. You think the difference in pageviews won't become close, but you don't know. And Surtsicna, we definitely don't know if ASoIaF is the next R+J, and I'm sure I could find some once successful books that have been almost forgotten about if I had the time. And I don't think this discussion is UK centered, what's important is there is another Jon Snow, who is well known in at least one part of the world, and recieves a significant number of pageviews. You don't have to be British to notice that. And Flyer22 bring up the question "what if?", something any driving instructor would say a lot. What if a car is coming round the bend towards you? Even if you don't think a car is coming round a bend, you still don't go round it a 60, because there could be a car there, even if unlikely. I say we should follow the same principal here. Everything you say could turn out to be right, but we don't know yet, so we should wait until we do. TedEdwards 22:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
But you are the one speculating about the future. You are the one saying that the character might not be the better known Jon Snow in the future, which is something you do not know. When do you think we will know? I am talking about the present, and we do know that the character has been looked up much more often for years. Five times more often, to put a number on it. Add to this the fact that the journalist is virtually unknown in the world outside one island while the character is globally popular and you have an obvious answer. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not speculating the future, I'm saying that GoT will end next year, and this has the potential to affect the pageviews. I'm also saying the effect is unpredictable; there might not be any change, the pageviews might got to 0, they might double, or anything in between. I'm saying this because the long-term significance of the character and journalist should be considered i.e. if high pageviews are a fluke. What I'm saying is that there is an upcoming event that could change the significance of this article, and no one wants a discussion in two years to undo this one. In the case of the journalist, there's nothing we know about yet that might affect the pageviews in a couple of years time. TedEdwards 00:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
You stated, "You think that the character will always have more pageviews than the journalist, but you don't know. You think that if the pageviews go down, the character will still be the primary topic, but you don't know. You said at one point you think the high pageviews aren't due to season 8 coming up, and therefore won't go down afterwards, but you don't know. You think the difference in pageviews won't become close, but you don't know." That is not how WP:Primary topic works; although page views can help determine a primary topic on Wikipedia, WP:Primary topic is not based on page views, and for good reason. Wikipedia is not the be all and end all when it comes to notability and what is more well-known. Due to WP:Recentism, a topic might get more page views than another for a year and still not be the primary topic. The fictional character will always be the primary topic because he is far more well-known; I do know that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Snow_(character)/Archive_1&oldid=1137076276"