Talk:Night King

Name
Soooo, how do we know this White Walker is the Night's King? --Martell (talk) 16:54, April 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * Viewer's Guide.-- 17:02, April 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, they've changed it to just "a Walker"... did they realise how badly they slipped up, or was it just a mistake?-- 17:57, April 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe "Night's King" is just the title for the leader of the White Walkers in the show? (84.187.252.184 18:00, April 28, 2014 (UTC))


 * But then why remove it from the guide.-- 18:06, 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. (84.187.252.184 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.  71.164.70.122 19:15, April 28, 2014 (UTC)Eatz
 * 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.  71.164.70.122 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)

No, it clearly wasn't HBO's intention for the information to be revealed so early, hence why they removed it. The page will remain locked.-- 13:34, April 30, 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.

As for the Night's King, I think its a bit late for them to be hiding this being's identity, now that the cat is out of the bag. --Fenrir51 (talk) 01:24, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Merge please.
Someone needs to merge this page with the Night's King / White Walker's master page, now that we know they are one and the same.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 03:21, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

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)

Split
How do we know this Night's King is the same as the ancient Night's King of stories?--Gonzalo84 (talk) 23:08, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Heraldry icon
We need a heraldry icon to represent the White Walkers. Any ideas? I was thinking maybe a blue eye, or the head of one of those ice scepter/spear things.--Ser Patrek (talk) 11:20, 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)

Physical difference?
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)

UNMERGE
...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.

Unfortunate that we're starting to run into book-spoiler stuff like this with no clear answer.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:07, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Ask Cogman? --Gladiatus (talk) 19:00, June 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * 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'd say try and establish a definite answer as to whether or not they're the same before taking any further action.--Ser Patrek (talk) 19:37, June 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * Stay merged. WaitingForYou (talk) 20:17, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Wait, by "further action" what do you mean? Doesn't it make more sense to assume they're not the same person until stated otherwise?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:59, 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.

Gboy4 (talk) 22:13, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

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 think we should at least note in the article that we're not sure if they're the same person.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:23, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. Gboy4 (talk) 22:25, June 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * I insist at the split.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 22:57, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree User Ser Patrek on leaving it alone.WaitingForYou (talk) 23:05, 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.

Voting:

Yes Neutral No
 * Lksdjf (talk) 03:51, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:36, June 9, 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)

Comments:

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)

...Mullen refers to him as the "Night King", not the "Night's King", again.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:37, 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)

Well, we don't have any proof at the moment, but the fact that so many people drew the same conclusion can't be ignored. - Son Of Fire (talk) 17:33, 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."

In light of Martin's statement I think that gives more weight to the position that we really shouldn't assume they're the same character.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:18, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

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?

As of yet Cogman has not responded.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:24, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

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)