- Maybe "Night's King" is just the title for the leader of the White Walkers in the show? (18.104.22.168 18:00, April 28, 2014 (UTC))
- It could only be a mistake or it was an unintentional spoiler. But personally I don't think this is the original "Night's King" from the Age of Heroes, he looked too much like one of "the Others" for once being a human. (22.214.171.124 18:17, April 28, 2014 (UTC))
- Just a note , under the "in the show" sections it speculates that the supposed Night King can change human babies into White Walkers or Whigs. I assume it was supposed to be wights and not a now defunct political party from US or Britain. 126.96.36.199 19:15, April 28, 2014 (UTC)Eatz
They should open this up to be editted.
HBO inadvertently confirmed that the Night's King is alive and not deceased. 01:44, April 29, 2014 (UTC)~~
This is what I think. HBO made an error and stupidly spoiled his real identitety. But I think he's not the same LC Night's King of Commander of Nightfort. He's jus one Other leader, who is King of Night, or something like that. He's propably named Night's King, but is not the same from Old Nan's (RIP) stories. --Gladiatus (talk) 17:17, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
The being shown at the end of S4E4 was not the same mythical Night King that was the 13th head of the Night's Watch. Some people say it is, and some say it isnt, and nobody can confirm anything at this point (hell, it might even turn out to be The Great Other, who is a god of ice and darkness, thus 'Night King'); it might be worth putting a "Trivia" or something at the bottom of the page pointing out that the being was initially listed as "Night King" but later changed, since thats about the only thing that can be confirmed, and should keep people from trying to add it as some kind of confirmed fact. Tathra (talk) 23:52, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
First, a little off-topic, by the Whigs are still around. They're called Liberal Democrats, now.
How do we know this? The page on the Night King derived from Histories & Lore says this:
"The Night's King and Queen were both killed for the crimes..."
How can we be sure that they're the same person? It's not impossible for a new Night's King to have taken power, and that the Night King from Hardhome is a different figure than the one from antiquity. All we know is that they both held the same title. Lksdjf (talk) 01:01, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
- I'd vote for an icy blue eye on a white background, since both White Walkers and their wights have it. DRAEVAN13 11:59, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
Should it be noted on the page that unlike all the other White Walkers, who have long white hair and no horns, he has icy horns and no hair at all? It seems to me to be worth noting. DRAEVAN13 11:58, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
...I'm not sure if this was thoroughly discussed while I was away:
No, the Inside the Episode Guide does not refer to him as "the Night's King". It consistently called him "The Night King" -- no possessive "S". Even the HBO Viewer's Guide synopsis also consistently uses "The Night King".
Second...even if he was called "the Night's King"....why did everyone assume they're the same person?
Maybe "Night's King" is a title, like "Storm King" or "King in the North".
We should treat them as two separate characters.
One called "The Night King" (the White Walker), and one called "The Night's King" - or perhaps "The Night's King (Legendary)" etc.
Thoughts on this? We need to settle it soon.
- I'd go for the article split. One for the "Original Recipe" Night's King and another for the "Extra-Spiny Crispy" Night's King.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 19:14, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
I think they should stay merged at least until we find more evidence:
I doubt that they're going to call him the Night's/Night King and simply make it some stupid coincidence, also I doubt it's a title used by two people as the White Walker doesn't seem to secretly be currently leading the Night's Watch in a tyranical fashion, if he's an original character I'd have thought he'd be called "The White/Ice/Winter/Snow King" or something like that.
Secondly the Night's King's identity was accidentaly revealed in Oathkeeper and while that's not official I assume that backs it up a little.
Thirdly we know that humans can become white walkers and the NK likely had some link to the them.
Also Your only actual evidence that they aren't the same person is the nickname seems to lack an apostraphe and an "s" which seems to be more of an argument for simply renaming it.
Any chance of putting this to a vote? because somehow I doubt one side is going to convince the other unless new evidence shows up.
Oh, to be clear, I don't doubt that he could be the original Night's King somehow (though they said the Starks and Joramund killed him)...I just don't want to say it without confirmation.
Personally I suspect it's a title or something. I shot Cogman's twitter account a tweet about this but he's never answered any of my messages and I don't expect him to now.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:22, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
- I insist at the split.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 22:57, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to raise the issue, to be clear, I'm not trying to fight on this: I have no god-damned idea how to proceed because this is just plain something not in the current novels yet. Crud. My personal vote is to keep them separate but I will happily agree to what the consensus on here is.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:10, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
The burden of proof rests on those who merged the two articles. I have not seen that burden fultilled, and indeed, I have seen evidence that runs contrary to the assertions implied by merging the two articles. We need to split UNTIL we can provide sufficient evidence that the two are the same. Lksdjf (talk) 06:53, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
- I vote to split them. Yes, they probably are the same, and the articles will probably end up needing to be merged again... but there's always that slim slim chance that it's just a title held by multiple individuals. Unless there is definitve prove that they're the same person the wiki must maintain it's integrity by not jumping to conclusions.--The White Winged Fury 07:33, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
Official vote to revert back to split articles
Can we get a vote going? Let's run it for a week to give ample chance for people to vote on this proposal.
Proposal: The current "Night's King" article is up for debate on whether or not to keep it in its current state, or to revert it back to the previous split articles. A "yes" vote is in favor of a split, in which the original Night's King article will contain information mostly derived from Histories & Lore, and a separate Night King article will be mostly show-based. A "no" vote keeps the current article intact, and all future edits regarding the Night's King assume that the figure from antiquity and the White Walker from Hardhome are the same person. Votes can be changed until the deadline. A comments section will be provided to make your case to support all stances between yes and no.
- Lksdjf (talk) 03:51, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:36, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:39, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Son Of Fire (talk) 03:59, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- WaitingForYou (talk) 05:13, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- --Mesmermann (talk) 06:50, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- ArticXiongmao (talk) 08:48, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Gboy4 (talk) 09:16, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- --Ser Patrek (talk) 09:27, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- --Gladiatus (talk)
- --The White Winged Fury 11:32, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
Ross Mullen called him the Night's King http://youtu.be/sXpMksIuj54?t=35s I agree there are not two Night's Kings and it seems convoluted to try to pretend that they are separate because the next book hasn't yet been published. The show has never mentioned Old Nan's story that he was a ____ so I'd remove that before anything else. Have a feeling this unmerging stuff is more how the show is ahead of stuff that will happen in the books (see folks having online hissy fits about Shireen) and two separate unnecessarily convoluted articles isn't going to change that. This unmerging isn't about trying to helpful resource or relevant since EVERYBODY in the online GoT world already has made that connection without a fuss http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr&ei=2HF2Ve-AI8SayATw2YDYAg#q=%22Night%27s+King%22+%22Game+of+Thrones%22 even Vanity Fair Online used this page as a source for its article http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/nights-king-jon-snow-hardhome-game-of-thrones WaitingForYou (talk) 05:13, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! Yes, it's absurd. There is no reason to have any doubt here, except for book readers who are not used to this unknown ground. He has been referred to as Night's King and Night King, and even if that wasn't the case, it's silly to imagine they're diferent characters because of it. Is it so difficul to understand that it would be absurd to name a character so closely to another? As for them being two different guys with the same name, there is no evidence to support that. We've got a mythical leader of White Walkers, which by this point are also mythical as well, and his name is the Night's King; and suddenly, alongside the very real White Walkers appears their leader, who is called the Night's King. That's what we know. That's what the wiki should reflect. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 08:52, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, those are some good points which I hadn't considered. And I hadn't even seen that Vanity Fair article... on that note I've changed my position, and will vote in favour of keeping the articles merged.--The White Winged Fury 11:32, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
...WaitingForYou: I wasn't here to update the "Night's King" article the week Hardhome aired, and HAD I been I would have kept them separate. You're citing that Vanity Fair itself cited this article...and my entire argument is that the edits to this article treating them as one character were in error?...wait...Vanity Fair didn't cite "this" article in its current merged form: all they did was cite who the ancient Night's King 8,000 years ago was, assuming it is the same character. That doesn't prove anything.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:39, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- While you are correct in your last point, TDD, I think what WFY was getting at is that Vanity Fair used the Wiki to confirm the back story of the Night's King. And you're right, on it's own, the fact that Vanity Fair think they aren't two characters doesn't mean much. However it's the collective articles that have the same view that matters. I'm struggling to find ANY articles that think the Night's King backstory is different to the one that's appeared in the show.
- Just think, why would GRRM bother to give this backstory about a mythical character 8000 years ago and have it mean NOTHING to the ongoing story, especially considering a similar bloke shows up in the current story. Wouldn't make any sense. If they wanted us to think they were separate characters, I think they would have been more obvious about it.
- As for Mullen saying "Night King" instead of "Night's King", I think this is utterly insignificant and an obvious butcher of the name that happens all the time. It's the same thing as someone saying "Sons of Harpy". We don't automatically assume that this is then a separate faction to the one already established because someone said the name slightly differently. - Son Of Fire (talk) 14:43, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly said, the fact that a large number of people jumped to this conclusion is not actually proof of it. And if he does actually turn out to be the historical Night's King I wouldn't mind.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:54, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- The point you seem do be repeatedly ignoring is that there has been no "jumping to conclusions." There has been no jumping at all! Here are the facts: the Night's King is a legendary figure in the books and the Blu Ray extras of the show. Now in the show we have a White Walker leader... whose name is the Night's King. There's no "jumping" involved here. You are the one doing great leaps of logic here. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 17:56, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
So Spake Martin
I asked George R.R. Martin about this via his livejournal and against all hope he responded. Westeros.org has added it to their So Spake Martin archive: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/12392
Now as I phrased in my question to him, I knew this was a delicate question he couldn't directly answer, but I asked 1 - if we should assume the are the same character, or keep separate articles on them, in case "Night's King" is a title, like "Storm King" and there's more than one. 2 - If it made any difference that the White Walker leader is consistently referred to as "the Night King" with no possessive "S".
Martin gave a curt and measured response carefully avoiding direct spoilers:
- "As for the Night's King (the form I prefer), in the books he is a legendary figure, akin to Lann the Clever and Brandon the Builder, and no more likely to have survived to the present day than they have."
I interpret it to mean the opposite. "In the books he is a legendary figure"... as in, in contrast to the show, in which he's very much alive. You really have to learn to accept book & show differences when they're presented plainly. There's just too many assumptions based only on book canon going on here. A small example: Olenna has been referred to as "Queen of Thorns" ONCE in the show; yet it's considered her popular nickname, which makes little sense, especially before 5x07 in which the name was first uttered; meanwhile, Jon Snow has been referred to as King Crow half a dozen times, but that's not book canon so it's relegated to the "Also known as" part in the character chart. Why? Because books. TDD, you in particular use every small excuse to worm in book canon when it doesn't reflect the reality of the TV show for ANY show watcher, such as Dolorous Edd, who has never been referred to that way on-screen; only on supplementary materials. Any show watcher visiting his page will be confused and ask himself if he's missing something. Wun Wun is, as far as we know in the show, Wun Wun; his whole name is book knowledge, which should be relegated to the In the books section. There're hundreds of examples of this kind of thing in the wiki. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 23:36, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
...He's called "Dolorous Edd" in the HBO Viewer's Guide, which we consider canon on here. I would have to do a more thorough check (i.e. full season rewatch) to see if they ever mention "Dolorous Edd", but it is enough.
True, Martin doesn't know what the scriptwriters intended and doesn't have final say - hence my message that "we'll see if they respond in a few days".
If you're that upset about the "Wun Wun" thing, why haven't you been bringing this up on a case by case basis with other Administrators? Make a list.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:44, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
I already said he's called Dolorous Edd in the suplementary material, so it should be reflected somewhere ("Also Known As".) But he's not called that on the show itself, so it's confusing to say it's a popular nickname, or that he's often called Dolorous Edd. 0 times in the whole show is not "often." Meanwhile, other show-only nicknames, of which I've given an example, are not given the same prominence, because they are not from the books.
As for why I haven't changed this stuff myself or suggested it, it's because I know it will be reverted (I tried with both Olenna and Edd; it was reverted, by you, if I'm not mistaken.) I've gone through this with you before; I give an example, and you act confused as to why I haven't brought it up earlier. It's because it's just an example. The point of those examples, and what is currently happening with Maegor frigging the Third and the Night's King, is that you latch on to anything, however supplementary, to be in line with the books (sorry, no, the fact that he's noted as Dolorous Edd in the viewer's guide, or Olenna the Queen of Thornes, doesn't mean they're "popularly called that" in the show... because they aren't —though as of 5x06 that's not the case with Olenna.) On the other hand, when something is different from the books, you bend over-backwards to somehow justify that it's actually just as it is in the books. I haven't done it myself or brought it up in a case by case basis because it's not just these examples; it's just how things are done in this wiki, mainly by you; it's a pervasive issue I and others have pointed out many times. I won't swim against the current, becuase it's pointless (particularly since you insist on an invented administrative privilege of "this is the last word I'll hear about this and I'm making an administrative decision" that does not exist as per Wikia rules); however, if I convince you and the current changes, then I'll bother to make these edits. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 00:06, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Others? You point to one or two other complaints and call it a crowd; yes we've been making such book comparisons for several seasons.
....This wiki operates on the basis that the animated "Histories and Lore" featurettes as well as the HBO Viewer's Guide are canon.
In recognition of their hard work we also include material from the Telltale video game onto the wiki. Do you suggest deleting such material entirely from the wiki?
I won't repeat myself... well I will because apparently you're still arguing against a straw man: no, I don't suggest deleting that information,a s I said before. Read what I wrote twice if you wanna know what I think should be done with that information, especially in comparison to other information of equal or more importance in the show that's not from the books. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 00:31, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Its not that we "worm" stuff... its because we need the books to fill in the blanks. Sometimes characters don't even get named in episodes. For example, there is no mention that the northern lady wearing armor in Season 1 is Maege Mormont. She's never named, not even mentioned indirectly on interviews, behind the scenes video, or credits. Because some of use use to book to complete what the show doesn't make explicit she would just be "Northern lady". Maybe I'm tired because its kind of late here in Lima but I thought the effort we "sullied" make to keep this wiki as complete and comprehensive as possible - instead of just cramming ever nameless background character into a single page of "Lannister bannerman" or "Stark soldier" or "nameless Kingsguard the production team probably named but we'll never know" - would be appreciated. --Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:34, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- In light of Martin's comments and that the legend states that the 13th Lord Commander declared himself "Night's King" and took over the Watch - he didn't cause another White Walker invasion, or took over the WWs - I insist that the two articles should be split.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:42, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Another one: the 13th Lord Commander was making sacrifices to the White Walkers, meaning he was subservient to them.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:46, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- The over abundance of book cannon (really, an whole article for Moelle with her nanosecond of screen time just because she's named in the books and that's just one example) is whole can of worms beyond this Night's King stuff. User:Gonzalo84 was insisting long before GMMR's comments so that's not new and the comments are not anywhere near as definitely as you'd like although he was very nice of him to bother. The book cannon doesn't matter here. The extras have mentioned the legendary Night's King and this guy's the Night's King. Before making counterpoints anyhow, does this even matter? Do all the votes against the split mean nothing if you two are convinced? WaitingForYou (talk) 06:28, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
"Night's King" is apparently a title, not an individual. I agree: we'll make one page "Night's King" (Legendary)" - or some other name - and call this White Walker "Night's King".--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:35, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
"You'll make..."? So you'll just ignore the poll, as WaitingForYou feared would happen? Great. That's just great. If it had been a "Yes", you'd use that fact to separate this into two articles. Meanwhile, a "No" can be ignored. It's absurd. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:48, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Due to new information from Martin, I thought we were restarting the poll. Anyone want to switch votes? Anyone want to confirm their vote is the same?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:06, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Martin's comment was vague and doesn't prove either argument, even though he isn't likely to have survived 8000 years it doesn't mean he hasn't as I imagine the odds of becoming a white walker are equally low and what evidence we have suggests that this is a guy who tends to beat the odds. So no I'm not switching my vote. Gboy4 (talk) 14:15, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- User:TDD thought nullify votes he disliked and force folks to spend even more time and effort on this than they already have? GMMR (which again was very nice of him) isn't even close to the smoking gun the anti-staying-together crowd of three wanted it to be. All GMMR wrote was that in the books (he made that qualification) the Night's King was a legend (like the Children of the Forest were legends before they showed up) which I and betting everybody who voted against this obfuscated split was already aware of before voting. What I dislike is that I can see the other side, but the other side can't or won't acknowledge mine (well mine and the majority so far). It isn't the default position that they are separate characters and have to amount an affirmative case that they're the same since there is no proof the other way round and the default could be it's the same character until evidence shows otherwise (and GMMR isn't proof). When Petyr Baelish tells Sansa Stark about the Great Tourney at Harrenhal, just because he used the name Rhaegar Targaryen doesn't mean it's the same Rhaegar Targaryen. He never said he was Daenerys' brother. Or when Cersei visits the fortune teller and she just says "Prince" and doesn't totally mean he's the same prince (don't need the books since Tywin's plans to marry her to Rhaegar were in the Histories & Lore). Or when Elizabeth Cadwallader's talent agent put up that she was playing Lollys Stokeworth, your case is just because she has the same name doesn't mean she's playing the character mentioned in the previous season. No, I don't believe that you'd want that, but I and others are not blind. I and betting the others have read the case against this being the same character, but still thought it wasn't compelling and motived in a large part by book reader baggage and vote in favor of it staying unmerged. WaitingForYou (talk) 15:49, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
" It isn't the default position that they are separate characters and have to amount an affirmative case that they're the same since there is no proof the other way round and the default could be it's the same character until evidence shows otherwise (and GMMR isn't proof). When Petyr Baelish tells Sansa Stark about the Great Tourney at Harrenhal, just because he used the name Rhaegar Targaryen doesn't mean it's the same Rhaegar Targaryen. He never said he was Daenerys' brother. "
..."GRRM" not "GMMR"?
...There's only one Rhaegar Targaryen who was married to Elia Martell.
Your position is the height of absurdity, as stated here. ArticXiangmao's was at least better grounded but...no proof that Cersei will be married to "the Prince" when there was only even one prince alive at the time? (Viserys wasn't born yet).
Let me be blunt: had I not been away in Europe when this episode aired, I would have instantly separated these two articles.
No, the burden of proof is on YOU to push the assumption - never stated on screen - that they are the same character.
I'm also baffled by your argument here, genuinely confused: you think that just because Littlefinger refers to "Rhaegar Targaryen" we shouldn't assume it is the same Rhaegar that is Daenerys's brother....yet basically in the same logical setup...you yourself assume that because one character is now called "the Night's King", he must be the same as a previous "Night's King" who lived and is said to have died thousands of years before the current one? You...you don't see a contradiction in holding both of these positions?
Again, consider that "The King in the North" has been mentioned multiple times in the Histories and Lore videos, without distinguishing one from another.
By your logic about the Night's King....we would have assumed that they were all ONE "King in the North".
NO, what was incorrect was to automatically assume they are the same character and not a title - particularly when the original Night's King is said to have been killed. So much time had passed by the time I got back that I called for discussion about it instead of doing it automatically - trying to be polite about it.
I'm waiting for the other Admins to make their thoughts known on this.
But the attitude that "we can't assume that in the TV show they were talking about a different Rhaegar at the Tourney of Harrenhal?"...that line of reasoning has no place on this wiki, or any other.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:22, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- The King in the North title has been confirmed to have been used multiple times with multiple people, there is only one known Night's King and I see no reason some random White Walker would decide to use a defunct Night's Watch title that has only been used once thousands of years before. Gboy4 (talk) 16:42, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- You lost the vote and voting is how Wikis work. I was mocking the argument that just because they have the same name doesn't prove it's the same character and not supporting it. The unmerge side lost the vote. I could make arguments and more arguments, but you won't agree regardless, but it's a Wiki and Wiki work by voting. WaitingForYou (talk) 16:53, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- And you're already taking the fact you're currently losing the vote badly, should I be concerned that you may ignore the vote and unmerge anyway? --Gboy4 (talk) 17:05, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Voting, in light of GRRM's comments
The vote is being restarted in light of George R.R. Martin's comments. Legacy votes from before he weighed in will not be counted - it us unfair and misleading to count those. We're starting over:
Voting: Should we unmerge these two articles?
- The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:36, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:39, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Lksdjf (talk) 20:15, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Son Of Fire (talk) 22:40, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- ArticXiongmao (talk) 23:32, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Gboy4 (talk) 16:37, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Greater Good (talk) 17:22, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- WaitingForYou (talk) 22:31, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Draevan13 22:49, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Gladiatus (talk) 08:59, June 11, 2015 (UTC)
- Ser Patrek (talk) 10:34, June 11, 2015 (UTC)
- The White Winged Fury 11:54, June 11, 2015 (UTC)
And yes, if the unmerge vote loses this time, it loses. But you can't count say, Mesmermann's vote when he didn't make it in light of GRRM's comments which had not yet been made.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:10, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- One, I don't appreciate you putting my User name in as voting one way or the other. That's for me to do, not anybody else. Why was the original voting nullified. Actually it's a safe bet why it was (TDD didn't like it). That's totally wrong. WaitingForYou (talk) 17:13, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
You can't reasonably count votes that were made before GRRM himself commented on this. Okay fine, I took your name off; please vote again as you will. And I added back the earlier vote and made this one a separate subheader.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:17, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
"Regardless on Night's King staying merged, telling folks to "reasseess your vote" and soliciting admins to vote seems like a weird/bad policy" -- I'm sorry if that came off too strong. Why wouldn't I ask Admins to vote on a major decision? And I also personally contacted everyone who voted before to inform them about this - if that was "soliciting", if I hadn't contacted them I might be accused of trying to ignore their vote/opinion. There have been times when I've been on the fence but then official creator commentary swayed me, so I legitimately worried that others might also be swayed -- I mean specifically, Gonzalo84 only voted on here after Martin's comments and specifically cited them. I meant nothing untoward by it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:41, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Beyond the weirdness of the one contributor agreed with unmerging gets a Thanks that nobody else got http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Lksdjf?diff=prev&oldid=200579, TDD did IGNORE everybody's vote already by nullifying their votes because TDD decided they weren't informed enough while ignoring that three separate contributors told TDD repeatedly it wasn't the major game changer TDD wants it to be. WaitingForYou (talk) 17:53, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Three isn't "all" of them. Whatever the case I'm genuinely not trying to be acrimonious about this: the near-miracle of GRRM giving any response on the matter warranted a new round of voting. It's a classic Torgon Greyiron situation. Look if you feel the case is that strong the unmerge position will probably still lose. All cards are on the table now. Do you see me threatening to lock this or ignore the vote? No. I'll do whatever this final vote says to.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:59, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- So everybody is suppose to applauded you for not making threats. And (AGAIN), you did ignore votes because deemed they weren't knowledgeable enough. You didn't go with your original plan of trying to get people to switch their vote. Your motivates are pretty suspect beyond GMMR's kindness. A new round of voting was warranted because you wanted to make it as difficult as possible. WaitingForYou (talk) 18:08, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- The other voter that voted yes only got a call for the new voting, there were no thanks in order.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 18:28, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Honestly a tough decision that I'm not entirely happy with, but with GRRM pretty much saying they are different characters, I see no reason why the show would do any different. Maybe on one of the articles add a conjecture tag.
Not much of a compromise but in the event of a tie we could always just get rid of the book information entirely and just have what has been established on the show as one solitary article. - Son Of Fire (talk) 22:40, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- No. It's not book information (well, the "in the books" section is.) The background information is from the Blu-Rays, which are canon. Anyway, I hope the vote holds now... though I very much doubt TDD would have insisted on a recount if "Yes" had been the result the first time, no matter what GRRM said. By the way, Son Of Fire, GRRM didn't say anything regarding the show —Please, do read his quote in context; he's deliberately avoding the question entirely and explicitly answering with his book canon —He says "in the books...", as in "in the books, distinctively form the show...". Do take that into account in your vote. If the GRRM quote is what made you switch, I do wonder why, if you read it in context. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 23:35, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the name being identical is a coincidence, we should wait before unmerging. DRAEVAN13 22:58, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Well the voting has gone to the "Don't separate" side. So it stays as it is, unless we get more information in the distant future next year. "Maegor III" however, I hope the writers would at least be willing to provide an answer about in a Q&A --The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:33, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
- Doubt it.--The White Winged Fury 11:14, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
Behind the scenes/controversy section
A section should be added stating:
- The viewer's guide/show production has referred to the White Walkers' leader as Night's King. The actor is credited as the Night's King. There has been no comment if this is the same as the 13th Lord Commander of the Watch.
- GRRM has stated that the 13th Lord Commander is a legendary figure like Lann the Clever or Bran the Builder and he's doubtful he would've survived into the present. (specially taking into consideration that the legendary Night's King is stated to have been KILLED)--Gonzalo84 (talk) 18:18, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- It's in the comment section which nobody else got and way to focus on one single thing ignoring how bewildering this whole situation TDD created is. WaitingForYou (talk) 18:50, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Agree it's the same thing. The sole reason to make this point about that the show didn't implicitly make the connection ignores that everybody that professionally covers GoT, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Vulture.com, Huffington Post, Slate, EW.com, Hollywood Reporter, Grantland, HitFix, The Nerdist, IGN, Vanity Fair, Time.com, Vox, Zap2it, Buzzfeed, The A.V. Club, Comicbook.com, etc.. has made this connection without a fuss and nobody from the show has implicitly said they're wrong either. WaitingForYou (talk) 18:50, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Not in the series, and I'm guessing not in the books. I agree with Gonzalo's proposed addition to the behind the scenes section. I would prefer not to use the word controversy, however.--Ragestorm (talk) 18:33, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Addendum: re-reading GRRM's comment, "As for the Night's King (the form I prefer), in the books he is a legendary figure, akin to Lann the Clever and Brandon the Builder, and no more likely to have survived to the present day than they have.", it looks to me like sidestepped TDD's question entirely, I don't see an opening for it to be a title, at least not specifically within the context of the statement.--Ragestorm (talk) 18:41, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- The White Walker Night's King has been called Night's King by HBO. Which, presumably, got it from the scripts or production team.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 18:42, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Well WFY, I suspect they also jumped to that conclusion in part because the wiki-page calls him that (as I was not here to bring up the issue to separate them). And just because they jumped to the conclusion as well doesn't make it true either.
- Well okay if you think so Ragestorm that's your vote on it. Sorry all if I was terse about this but it's a matter of principle, I meant no hurt feelings. Let's see how the voting goes now...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:12, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
- My interpretation of George's comments are: Everything the people of Westeros know about the Night's King is derived from hand-me-down folk lore, and no more relate to the actual Night's King than the legends about Lann the Clever relate to the founder of House Lannister. Supposedly, Lann aquired Casterly Rock using nothing but his wits... if that were true, where today is House Casterly? I don't think his comments were as black and white as you might like them to be, Dragon. My original vote stands.--The White Winged Fury 11:54, June 11, 2015 (UTC)
So... who exactly is this guy?
I'm now very confused. I could have sworn Bran referred to him as the Night King. It's also plausible to suspect that the man the Children drove the dagger into is the Night King, though I'm not sure if that's been confirmed. So, are the Night King and the Night's King now two different characters, or... are they the same character, and the man wasn't the Night's King? Does he go by both names? I'm just pretty confused, and we should discuss this to clear it up. Reddyredcp (talk) 03:15, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- They're two different people. The Night's King from the legends was the Lord Commander at the Nightfort, which means that he was from the Night's Watch. The Children of the Forest predate the Wall, as they had no longer been fighting by the time the Long Night came. The Wall was built by both the Children and the First Men, which means that the Night's King from the legends is almost certainly dead, and that the Night's King we keep seeing is far older. Lksdjf (talk) 05:00, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
Revert back to two articles
The episode irrefutably proved that the Night's King from the Night's Watch and the leader of the White Walkers are the same people. The Night's King was created during the war between the Children and the First Men The war between the Children and the First Men was over by the time of the Wall's construction, and the Wall predates the Nightfort. If the Night's King from the legends isn't dead, he's certainly not the same Night's King that leads the White Walkers. We should not need a vote to split the articles, as keeping them merged is factually incorrect and not a debate of subjective issues like style. Lksdjf (talk) 05:04, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Unless a future episode explains how the legends of the White Walkers' leader became garbled into a story about a Lord Commander. Also, GRRM has repeatedly stated that the events of the Long Night are as far removed from the time of the novels as tales of Gilgamesh are from our own time, and that the stories told about it should not be treated as historical fact. I say the article stays as it (name change is fine), but call a vote if you feel that strongly.--Ragestorm (talk) 05:56, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Night's King from the Age of Heroes and the Night King created long before the Wall each had their own articles. I'm simply asking that the former be restored as a standalone page, as we now know that the two are completely different figures. Lksdjf (talk) 06:04, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- That's my point. We don't know that they're completely separate figures, so I disagree with unmerging the pages. For all we know, they could be the same figure, whose true nature was forgotten in the following 8,000 years. Martin himself has said that that the stories from time of the Long Night and the Wall's construction are stories and not historical fact, so the Night King being around before the Wall isn't sufficient evidence that they're different characters.--Ragestorm (talk) 06:24, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that they're the same. Merging means that they are. Two articles on potentially the same topic does not absolutely mean (though it certainly implies) that the characters are different people, but given what we know now, it is a far safer option in terms of accuracy. We now have the clear origins of the Night King, and with all information at present, he's been clearly differentiated from the Night's King at the Nightfort, and even if the stories are apocryphal, they're more evidence than nothing at all, which is backing the assumption that they're the same people. The only shred of evidence for that idea is the similar name. Assuming past that requires assumptive leaps that are not substantiated with evidence, whereas all evidence at present currently points to them being different individuals. Lksdjf (talk) 06:32, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
Before you vote: A vote must stand for three days prior to changes being made. If you are in favor of a "Split" vote, you can speed up the process by letting the current vote stand (i.e., not vote) until 04:47, May 30, 2016 (UTC).--Ragestorm (talk) 17:52, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
- Split. The legendary Night's King was a human who lived after the Long Night while the leader of the White Walkers may have been the cause of the Long Night. The human Lord Commander declared himself the Night's King, sort of usurping the title of the White Walkers' leader and adding an apostrophe.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 17:23, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Split. To the extent that we know, it's been made clear that the Night's King and the Night King are two different characters. As stated before me, the Night's King is a legendary figure who took on the title of the leader of the white walkers, and, as it seems, combined it with the "Night's Watch" to get Night's King, while the character of the Night King was a captive First Man turned into a White Walker by the Children of the Forest. I don't know if there is a template for it on this wiki, but we should add a little text at the top saying "This article is about x, you may be looking for y." similar to other wikis. Otherwise, a disambiguation page could be created. Reddyredcp (talk) 20:03, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The issue has still not been directly addressed, on-screen or behind the scenes, all we know is that The Night King is the leader and probably first of the White Walkers, and that there is a story about a human Lord Commander who used the title "Night's King". There is nothing in-universe to suggest they are connected, and nothing to suggest that they are not. Until the issue is cleared up, I see no problem keeping them as one article with a little note saying that the discrepancy's only response has been a GRRM clarifying his preference for the possessive "s" and that these events occurred thousands of years ago.--Ragestorm (talk) 01:15, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
- Split. There never was a discrepancy. The only reasons given for linking the articles were because the two shared a name. GRRM's statement was vague, and did not bolster the claim for the two individuals being the same person. If anything, it discredited it. There is nothing to corroborate the claim that they are connected, but the Histories & Lore videos, combined with the most recent episode, provide very strong evidence to suggest that they are two different people. The two separate articles existed before the merge, and claiming that no strong evidence existed one way or another as a reason to support merging was a terrible logical leap to begin with. Lksdjf (talk) 02:43, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
- Split. For people who don't read the novels, having information in an article about the Night King as depicted on the show that doesn't actually MATCH what is depicted on the show doesn't make any sense. Plus, as was already pointed out, GRRM's comments actually suggest that the White Walker Night King ISN'T the same character as the Night's King mentioned in the novels.Daveyelmer (talk) 04:47, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
A better picture with the new actor
Normally it wouldn't matter, but he's played by a new actor and looks a little bit different:
188.8.131.52 22:27, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 01:44, May 24, 2016 (UTC)in the scene Leaf is creating the first White Walker, not the night king!
The Night King also has the power to weaken/put out fire when he approaches it, however this is not in the list of his abilities. In addition, I suspect a lot of new information will be coming out shortly with Bran receiving the mark, so it would be a shame if we were unable to edit the page to add anything we notice.
220.127.116.11 10:52, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
- The page is protected so that only registered users can edit. You are free to make an account (for free!) and add new information, but given the high profile of this page, we can't in all good faith change the protection level.--Ragestorm (talk) 15:12, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
Changing title: Night’s King v.s. Night King
Why is this article titled “Night King” and not “Night’s King”? Disregard this section (or just delete it) if there had been discussion on that matter (I skimmed the Talk page, it seemed to mostly be bickering about merging \ not merging with White Walker article), but the books refer to him as to “Night’s King” — in possessive form:
- from chapter 56 of Storm of Swords:
- It was here that Night’s King had reigned, before his name was wiped from the memory of man.
- The gathering gloom put Bran in mind of another of Old Nan’s stories, the tale of Night’s King.
- For thirteen years they had ruled, Night’s King and his corpse queen ...
- Night’s King was only a man by light of day, Old Nan would always say, but the night was his to rule.
- Read the above posts. The TV show canon is separate from the book canon. Furthermore, the show and production have been referring to the character as the Night King. The man we see turn into a White Walker at the hands of the Children of the Forest is the same actor that plays the Night King. At this point, it is a logical conclusion that they are now two separate characters, one being a legendary figure (Night's King) and one being the leader of the White Walkers (Night King). Reddyredcp (talk) 17:17, May 29, 2016 (UTC)
Brandon of the Bloody Blade
Since the TV canon differs from the book series' account of the Night's King's origins, I've considered that one such candidate of his origins may be this Brandon of the Bloody Blade character, who is also considered by legends from the Reach to be a forebear of Bran the Builder.
Brandon of the Bloody Blade was renowned for killing both Giants and Children of the Forest. So the Children could have captured him and decided to turn this formidable enemy into their own agent. --Fenrir51 (talk) 17:50, June 5, 2016 (UTC)
All I want to say is that the night king did not create the white walkers, the tree fellas or young children or whatever they are called did, remember Bran's vision