Talk:The Winds of Winter
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Winds of Winter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 91 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Might be in development hell?[edit]
The article for development hell says that the term is simply used to refers to something that takes more time that anticipated. For a book that has already taken more than twice the anticipated amount of time, its dev hell without a doubt. AwesomePhilosopher (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, "hell" is an underestimating term in this case. He makes the hell look cold, in what he does to his devoted readers (Literary hell, at least...). And yes, i agree, no need in "might". Yanivshn (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- At this point, the book is mostly notable for NOT being written. There is no reason why this shouldn't be part of the lead Bipsy the lab (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Development hell denotes a lack of production progress, and the term is not typically applied to books. We know that progress is being made, it is a book (so a medium that is not typically what the term is applied to), and the only source provided is an outdated tongue-in-cheek speculative piece from last year. There is no compelling reason to add this to the article. The lead already makes it very clear that the writing is still in progress, and the article makes it clear that the process has been very long. Applying the term does not actually add anything of value. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Development hell indicates exactly what is going on here. It can't go to production because it can't get out of development. It can't get out of development because it keeps getting restarted and changed. You object because you say it's irrelevant, but it's more relevant than all of the contradictory statements and quotes that make up this article today. Bipsy the lab (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with TenTonParasol. BTW "production" (do you produce books?) and "keeps getting restarted" (source?) indicate POV. WikiHannibal (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, books go into production. This is slightly off topic, but we have a page on the history of books you should check out. It's a good general interest article. But back to the topic, this book was prepared for production (covered in the history section with a source) and canceled. Since then, expectations have been set, and reset, as the book is rewritten (sourced, same section). It is clear the book is in development hell. Their is a source. The real question is whether it is wp:due for the lead, somewhere else, or nowhere. I would say that due to the longest section of the article being about its tumultuous history, it belongs in the lead. I'd accept using the source in the history section instead as well though. Bipsy the lab (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your summary of what (as I understand it) the writing history section says is, like, a rather broad interpretation of what it says. And what you're suggesting with there already being a source for adding that the book is in development hell runs afoul of WP:SYNTH or otherwise WP:OR in general, and WikiHannibal is right about the WP:POV issues about it. You need a specific source (honestly, multiple for the level of assertion you're trying to add into the article) directly saying the thing you're saying—and it needs to be better than the tongue-in-cheek speculative article from 2021. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. We don't add that it's in development hell unless we have WP:RS that say so. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.theringer.com/game-of-thrones/2021/4/16/22386932/why-cant-george-rr-martin-finish-winds-of-winter is the rs that was removed multiple times that describes the book as being stuck in development hell. I'd use a word like limbo, but the source says development hell Bipsy the lab (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/books/1358498/Game-of-Thrones-George-RR-Martin-Winds-Winter-release-date-book-chapters-HBO-ending this is an interview where grrm discusses rewriting chapters and says "that's why they call it development hell". So, two sources including the author. Bipsy the lab (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Turns out the source for the previous quote is Grrms blog, which is accepted as a reliable source for the status of the book all over this page - https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2020/11/08/back-to-westeros/ Bipsy the lab (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ringer is the source I'm referring to multiple times above as outdated and tongue-in-cheek. It is not appropriate for this claim. Daily Express is considered generally unreliable. GRRRM's personal blog is acceptable in this context, but a) this is from 2020 and further updates say progress has been made, b) the blog in question also literally says that rewriting is "nothing new", and c) the mere fact that some portions of the book has been rewritten does not constitute a development hell as rewrites as considered a normal part of any writing process (don't I know it), and it takes MUCH more than "stuff was rewritten" to support the claim you are making about marking this project as in development hell. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I feel you are setting unrealistic goalposts here. We can't use sources that are two years old? That would mean getwrod of most of this article - unrealistic. Development hell doesn't mean no development, it means having to redo the work causing a a huge stall, in this case 12 years so far. We have rs, from horses mouth. It's not controversial. We use decade plus old entries from the same blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipsy the lab (talk • contribs) 06:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is not just the age of the blog post, it is that it is not saying what you are trying to say. The blog post does not say that the project is in development hell. It says that portions have been rewritten and progress has been made. The blog post linked does not state a stalling in the project or its development. Again, you are doing original research (WP:OP), specifically synthesis (WP:SYNTH) that is at best dubious, and applying your own interpretation in violation of the neutral point of view policy (WP:POV). I am not setting unrealistic goalposts by telling you that you must provide multiple reliable (WP:RS), up-to-date sources that state what you are saying without any editorializing, interpretation, or synthesis on your part, and three other editors (two others in this thread) have concurred. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where do you see synth in taking a Grrm quote about the book being in development hell and saying it is in development hell? Do you want attribution? "in 2020 grrm said the book was in development hell" Bipsy the lab (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is not just the age of the blog post, it is that it is not saying what you are trying to say. The blog post does not say that the project is in development hell. It says that portions have been rewritten and progress has been made. The blog post linked does not state a stalling in the project or its development. Again, you are doing original research (WP:OP), specifically synthesis (WP:SYNTH) that is at best dubious, and applying your own interpretation in violation of the neutral point of view policy (WP:POV). I am not setting unrealistic goalposts by telling you that you must provide multiple reliable (WP:RS), up-to-date sources that state what you are saying without any editorializing, interpretation, or synthesis on your part, and three other editors (two others in this thread) have concurred. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I feel you are setting unrealistic goalposts here. We can't use sources that are two years old? That would mean getwrod of most of this article - unrealistic. Development hell doesn't mean no development, it means having to redo the work causing a a huge stall, in this case 12 years so far. We have rs, from horses mouth. It's not controversial. We use decade plus old entries from the same blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipsy the lab (talk • contribs) 06:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ringer is the source I'm referring to multiple times above as outdated and tongue-in-cheek. It is not appropriate for this claim. Daily Express is considered generally unreliable. GRRRM's personal blog is acceptable in this context, but a) this is from 2020 and further updates say progress has been made, b) the blog in question also literally says that rewriting is "nothing new", and c) the mere fact that some portions of the book has been rewritten does not constitute a development hell as rewrites as considered a normal part of any writing process (don't I know it), and it takes MUCH more than "stuff was rewritten" to support the claim you are making about marking this project as in development hell. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. We don't add that it's in development hell unless we have WP:RS that say so. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your summary of what (as I understand it) the writing history section says is, like, a rather broad interpretation of what it says. And what you're suggesting with there already being a source for adding that the book is in development hell runs afoul of WP:SYNTH or otherwise WP:OR in general, and WikiHannibal is right about the WP:POV issues about it. You need a specific source (honestly, multiple for the level of assertion you're trying to add into the article) directly saying the thing you're saying—and it needs to be better than the tongue-in-cheek speculative article from 2021. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, books go into production. This is slightly off topic, but we have a page on the history of books you should check out. It's a good general interest article. But back to the topic, this book was prepared for production (covered in the history section with a source) and canceled. Since then, expectations have been set, and reset, as the book is rewritten (sourced, same section). It is clear the book is in development hell. Their is a source. The real question is whether it is wp:due for the lead, somewhere else, or nowhere. I would say that due to the longest section of the article being about its tumultuous history, it belongs in the lead. I'd accept using the source in the history section instead as well though. Bipsy the lab (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with TenTonParasol. BTW "production" (do you produce books?) and "keeps getting restarted" (source?) indicate POV. WikiHannibal (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Development hell indicates exactly what is going on here. It can't go to production because it can't get out of development. It can't get out of development because it keeps getting restarted and changed. You object because you say it's irrelevant, but it's more relevant than all of the contradictory statements and quotes that make up this article today. Bipsy the lab (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Development hell denotes a lack of production progress, and the term is not typically applied to books. We know that progress is being made, it is a book (so a medium that is not typically what the term is applied to), and the only source provided is an outdated tongue-in-cheek speculative piece from last year. There is no compelling reason to add this to the article. The lead already makes it very clear that the writing is still in progress, and the article makes it clear that the process has been very long. Applying the term does not actually add anything of value. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The writing history is getting ridiculously long[edit]
It’s several screens on my iPad. We’re not talking about the novel of the century here. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- we might be...... 80.189.136.3 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)