Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Roll call

Please sign your name below and on the members page. Comments are optional.

Issues

Other specific issues regarding Tolkien-related Wikipedia content.

List

Cities
Places and Realms

The below articles in this section are no longer active merger candidates but most are still stubs or have been tagged for notability or in-universe style of writing. De728631 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hills, Mountains, and Passes
Rivers and Bays
People and Houses
Writings
Miscellaneous
Moved to Talk:History of Arda

In History of Arda Why are Finarfin and his children (esp. Finrod) not mentioned in the Years of the Trees, or the First Age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.3.135 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


Forgotten mergers

In November 2007 User:YLSS placed a Merge JRRT template on Dor Daedeloth, recommending that it be merged with Beleriand. (That user does not appear to have edited since 2008.) No corresponding merge template was placed on Beleriand, however, and no merger discussion was initiated. I would suggest that either a discussion be initiated at Talk:Dor Daedeloth, or that the template be removed. See Help:Merging for more information on proposing mergers. Cnilep (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need a discussion for that one but can rather quickly merge it to Angband, which itself could need some fleshing-out. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Same thing, all marked non-notable and certainly most, merge to:

  1. Ered Mithrin
  2. Ered Wethrin
  3. Eregion
  4. Esgaroth
  5. Ettenmoors
  6. Harad
  7. Hithlum
  8. House of Hador
  9. Lond Daer Enedh
  10. Luthany
  11. Meduseld
  12. Menegroth
  13. Minhiriath
  14. Morgul Pass
  15. Nargothrond
  16. Orocarni
  17. Osgiliath
  18. Ost-in-Edhil
  19. Pelennor Fields
  20. Reunited Kingdom
  21. River Sirion
  22. Torech Ungol
  23. Umbar

Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

User:Arskwad has merged a lot of those today. What still remains is shown in the "Issues" section above. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I would take a crack at Umbar, which needs a serious rewrite, and merge Corsairs of Umbar (another forgotten merger not listed above) there as well (again with rewriting) -- something on the models of Rhovanion and Rohan as parent articles hosting peoples and realms that occupied the territory. Umbar itself should remain as an independent article; there's really no good merge target. -- Elphion (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages and their categories

I just noticed that there is a hidden talk page template {{ME-disambiguation}} that sorts articles into Category:WikiProject Middle-earth disambiguation pages. At the same time we have Category:Disambig-Class Tolkien articles coming from the rating in the project template on talk pages. In my opinion we should gather them all by tagging with the project template. These project banner rating categories have a built-in navigation box and you can also jump to Category:Disambig-Class Tolkien articles from the quality roster on this page.

In terms of work it would surely be easier to just tag the three pages in Category:Disambig-Class Tolkien articles with the other template but I for one think the categories populated by {{ME-project}} are much more user-friendly. What do you think? De728631 (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm up for it. What do I need to do? What tags need going on which pages? GimliDotNet (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Please check the pages in Category:WikiProject Middle-earth disambiguation pages and replace {{ME-disambiguation}} with {{ME-project|class=disamb}}. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hobbit FA push

In its present state The Hobbit looks ready to me for being lifted to FA class. It is very well-referenced and the plot section is pleasantly short while telling the major events. Then there's a lot of real-world info like concept/creation, reception, adaptations etc. No edit warring either. Should we try and nominate it or did I miss anything that should be fixed beforehand? De728631 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have just requested WP:Peer review for the article De728631 (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The article is now an official featured article candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Hobbit/archive2. De728631 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

I have just prodded three articles, Eothain, Éomund and Lothíriel, all three of which are minor characters from the books and have no real-life notability at all. Frankly I can't even remember these characters having just re-read the books, with two of them mentioned in passing and Eothain only having a couple of lines. I perhaps would of supported redirecting them to a list, but I can't find a relevant list to actually link them too. Anyway I am informing this project for any consideration you may have. QueenCake (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have deprodded Eothain and turned it into a disambiguation page to distinguish between Tolkien's book character and the original character in the Jackson films. The other two (and also Théodwyn) have been redirected to Éomer where these character are further described in their fictional context as Éomer's family members. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
That seems like sensible decisions for Éomund and Lothíriel. However I question the necessity of keeping a page for Eothain, we now have the problem of a disambiguation page for two minor characters - neither of which deserve articles for themselves, and hence don't deserve a dab page either. If the page can't be redirected I would suggest sending it to AFD. QueenCake (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
On a closer look at WP:DAB it is allowed to list topics that don't have their own articles as long as there is a main article to link to where the disambiguation term is explained. That is the case for List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy where Jackson's Éothain is is treated along other original movie characters. However, neither The Lord of the Rings nor Rohan make any mention of Éothain, and rightfully so.
So I think we should redirect the page to the list of original characters and explain that this Éothain is different from the book character. Because of the popularity of the films Éothain is a valid search term that should be covered by Wikipedia and that list seems to be the right place. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure if Éothain is a valid term (he was a kid who appeared for a couple of minutes), but a redirect to that list seems good enough. While you can list topics without their own articles on a Dab page, I don't believe one that solely consists of that is a good enough inclusion. I do recommend redirecting it. QueenCake (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I have now redirected Éothain to the list. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you wrote that Numenor is a continent?

Hallo, I'm Italian; I write in the name of the Italian Wikiproject called "Progetto Tolkien". We don't know if classify Numenor as a island or as a continent. We know that you have wrote that Numenor could be a continent (in the template on your page). But why? What are sources? (We must be sure it's the right solution). Thank you and I'm sorry for my english. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Númenor legend is based on the Atlantis myth, according to J.R.R. Tolkien: Architect of Middle Earth by Daniel Grotta, Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord Of The Rings by Lin Carter Númenor was an 'island continent' GimliDotNet (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations of Tolkien characters

Hi all; GimliDotNet suggested me to write here. In the wikiArS project with Llotja school of art, in witch I'm involved, the illustration student Jessica León had produced free licence images about Tolkien's characters. If someone wants to use them in any article you can found it here or here. --Dvdgmz (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think these are great, I'd rather see these in the infoboxes that screen caps from the Jackson films. Especially as when the Hobbit is release we're going to get a deluge of updates I think as interest is piqued. GimliDotNet (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should feature any one particular artist's rendition of a character in the infobox. There are no original depictions, and everything that has been done has simply been an artistic interpretation of what is presented in the text. I think what we have at Gandalf, Aragorn, and Frodo Baggins is what should remain: no image in the infobox, and thumbnails of different adaptations (including from Jackson's films) down in the body where the adaptations are discussed. —Akrabbimtalk 14:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind having images in the infoboxes but such images should come from a professional artist and be notable on their own. Pictures like Tttom's Tolkien Calendar images or screenshots from any of the movies will support the articles by adding a significance of the subject beyond the original texts. That said, I would not include artwork from drawing classes or whatever else fan-art can be found in Commons:Category:Middle-earth characters. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I would rather avoid illustrations in the info box, since with a few exceptions from The Hobbit (whose copyright is jealously guarded by the Tolkien Estate), there are no originals from Tolkien's hand. Images in the info box would acquire something of a "official" character that is really not warranted. I would also continue the long-standing practice of placing film caps under "Adaptations", since the films often depart from the books. -- Elphion (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Fan images

Goustien is again pushing to include fan art in the Middle-earth articles. Can we finally come to some consensus as to whether these are suitable for the articles. I for one think they are poor quality and nothing more than an attempt to push a favoured viewpoint. Any other opinions? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm no great supporter of fan art. I added an image to Battle of Mirkwood only because it was already used in two related articles, but its removal would not diminish the articles. I would prefer to see judicious use of noteworthy art from published sources, and for this reason I inserted Tolkien's own design of the Eye of Sauron instead of the fan art versions in Sauron and Mordor. Where no authoritative artwork is available for certain iconic images such as heraldry, I suggest we accept fan art versions that are clearly based on Tolkien's verbal descriptions (e.g., the White Hand of Isengard). Goustien (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Goustien that we should prefer professional artwork which has been published elsewhere. Unfortunately that will require a non-free-use rationale for most images unless the creator published or uploaded them under a free license. See e.g. User:Tttom's images which have been featured in the Tolkien Calendar. But I won't mind using high-quality fan art where there's no alternative. Although these images should have explanatory captions like "drawn after Tolkien's writings" or "An artist's rendition of Dol Guldur" so they won't be mistaken for first-party material. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This topic came up at Arwen. In that case, I removed a non-free image of Liv Tyler, since it didn't meet the non-free criteria. I placed File:Arwen by Anna Kulisz.jpg on the page as a replacement, but was reverted by User:Elphion. In my view, good art like this, whatever the source, adds to the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is that fan art is not a reliable source: including such images amounts to the same thing as including opinion from off the street. Some may be good, others bad; but the authority is missing. -- Elphion (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

File:JRR Tolkien signature - from Commons.svg is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 4‎. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Themes of The Lord of the Rings

Does anyone have access to War and the works of J.R.R. Tolkien by Janet Brennan Croft? Following the IP's thoughts about Tolkien and World War II at Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Second world war it would be interesting to have some thematic analysis for the War of the Ring. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien

I looked at this page specifically for a summation of literary criticism Tolkien's works. The section Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien#Literary_criticism, however, only mentions mainstream criticism in passing and only to dismiss it with a quote that no mainstream critic was qualified to critique Tolkien, which is an odd defense of the work, if that's what that section was meant to be. Yet as Wikipedia strives to be as lacking in bias as possible, a good summary of what mainstream literary critics have to say (and perhaps another line explaining the quote that dismisses them) is called for. Pandarsson (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now quoted Edmund Wilson on Tolkien so the reader gets an idea what Lobdell refers to. And I agree that we should expand this particular section. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I came to this section (Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien#Literary_criticism) because I have been working on a revision of a critical essay I wrote many years ago. My essay deals with broad moral issues raised by the work of Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, and compares these to a sci fi novel by the Russian authors Arkady and Boris Strugatsky and its film version by Andrei Tarkovsky. I have been considering an expansion and revision of my text, and went to Wikipedia to find references for further research. However, like user Pandarsson, I found this section to be a disappointment. The reference and link to Edmund Wilson is amusing, but Wilson's text is short and lacks detail. The references to Marxian criticism are also somewhat trite and not very informative: E. P. Thompson can hardly be taken literally when he "blames the cold warrior mentality on "'too much early reading of The Lord of the Rings'". In view of the pages and pages devoted to Tolkien, Tolkien fandom and nearly every aspect of Tolkien's work on Wikipedia and on the net at large, I think there would be no harm in expanding this short critical section substantially. Not being an expert on Tolkien studies, I do not feel competent to undertake such an expansion myself, however I do have a few references that might serve as a starting point (I'll look around to see if I find anything more, and post it here if I do): (1) Raffel, Burton (1969). "The Lord of the Rings as Literature". (In N. D, Isaacs & R. A. Zimbardo: Tolkien and the Critics: Essays on J. R. R. Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings', pp. 218-246.) The essay is part of a collection of mostly uncritical work on Tolkien. It argues that LoTR is a well-written (fast-moving, gripping and exciting) story, but as literature (in terms of style, characterization, incident and morality) it fails. Raffel's stylistic argument (with numerous quotations from LoTR contrasted with passages from literary classics) is particularly well elaborated. (2) Yeskov (or Eskov), Kirill (1999). The Last Ringbearer. (Originally published in Russian. Available online at http://ymarkov.livejournal.com/270570.html.) This is not a critical work, but an independent novel, which, however, very forcefully criticizes the political morality of Tolkien's worlds. It portrays the War of the Ring from the point of view of its losers (Mordor and the orcs). Though the book is the subject of a Wikipedia article (The Last Ringbearer), I think it at least deserves mention here. Moreover, the Wikipedia article's description of the novel as "an alternative account of and an informal sequel to" LoTR ignores the fact that it also constitutes a critique of the morality of LoTR - a fact that might be emphasized in the present section. The criticism implied in the novel is: (a) The clear-cut Good-Evil dichotomy of LoTR is an oversimplification that is not applicable to real-world events, (b) The losers of any war or conflict have a legitimate story to tell, which is often obscured by the histories told by the winners, (c) The individual participants in any conflict are real people, not types. (3) Nielsen, F. S. "The Morality of Mythical Worlds: Critical Reflections on Narrative Form". I hesitate to recommend my own essay (see above for short description), which has not been published, and the quality of which I am myself unable to assess objectively. It is possible that it contains aspects of critique that are not covered elsewhere, but since I am not at all an expert on Tolkien studies, it may well be that the same points are made more cogently elsewhere. Filursiax (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Mythopoeic Society

The revision history of this article shows that certain regular and new editors are actually members of this society (cf. [1]). See also the statement at Talk:Mythopoeic Society. While I currently don't see any obvious COI in the article's text we might want to check the content from time to time in terms of NPOV and other guidelines. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

image:TheHobbitFilm13Dwarves.jpg

File:TheHobbitFilm13Dwarves.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Middle-earth redirects

I wonder if we need this category at all. While it was useful back in 2007 when it was established, the current approach of administrative WikiProject categorisation is talk page tagging with a project's assessment template. I have recently added a redirect class to {{WikiProject Middle-earth}} to classify a bunch of articles that had been rated NA-class until then. So instead of having two similar categories Middle-earth redirects and Redirect-class Tolkien categories I think we could have a bot replace the old article side redirect templates with an instance of {{WikiProject Middle-earth}} on the talk page. That way we would have an up to date overview on redirects by taking a look at the assessment template on the project page. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know or knowingly guess what share of ME redirect pages do have talk pages, whether or not the talk pages carry banner {{WikiProject Middle-earth}}? (The first page listed in Category:Middle-earth redirects, namely Adrahil, has none.)
Does anyone know or knowingly guess what share of ME redirect pages are in none of the Middle-earth rcats? (The first page I guessed off the top of my head, namely Aelfwine, is a redirect page in no rcat, with no talk page. As its target is a disambiguation page, however, I don't know whether this Project would have designed to take it in.)
By the way, my reaction to the 3-year-old proposal is "why create redirect talk pages?" that are not the vestiges of merge, move, etc. --P64 (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention this. 'Ered Luin' and 'Blue Mountains (Middle-earth)' currently redirect to Eriador. However there is now a specific article on the Ered Luin, namely Minor places in Middle-earth (fictional)#Ered Luin. [BTW can '(fictional)' be dropped? Otherwise it should be added to the title of every other Middle-earth article. It's also cumbersome.] I tried to edit the redirect myself, but this was teversed by an autobot. Jungleboy63 (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox images?

I asked about this at Talk:Gandalf but was directed here. I was wondering why the none of the infoboxes in articles about LOTR characters have images, although this is done for most other literary characters. A few examples are Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, or any of the characters in the Harry Potter universe. I understand there's a preference against using images from Peter Jackson's movies, but there are plenty of well-known illustrations of these characters we could use that aren't from the movies. Zeromus1 (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again :). Some of the characters do have images, Fëanor for instances has an (in my opinion a rather crappy) illustration. The avoidance of Jackson images in the infoboxes is two fold, one is they are just one interpretation of the character and two the fair use policy is rather strict - we are discussing literary characters, not film characters. They do however get fair-use in the adaptation sections where the film portrayal is discussed. This is a general guide, I don't know how pages like Harry Potter (character) get away with it, possibly because the Tolkien focused editors here are rather more stuffy than the potter fan boys ;) GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Turgon has an even worse one IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I notice it was suggested in a discussion above to use images from the Tolkien calendars. I would support that idea. But do the same issues apply to those as well? Zeromus1 (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer in this order Tolkien's images -> Illustrated book versions -> Illustrated artists version (inc. calendars). I think the issue is always copyright though. I will leave it to others with more experience to discuss those issues though. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The main issue here is in fact copyright. I.e. most previously published artwork is non-free and would have to be commented on in the articles instead of merely serving as a decoration. One requirement for non-free content is that it "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." But I think many Tolkien articles would benefit from an illustration to help the general reader understand the concept and context. And especially for the lesser known topics we could use professional images to point out popular impact. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so how do we decide which images to use? Zeromus1 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think De's post makes the answer fairly clear. Most freely usable artwork is not of sufficient quality, and the copyrighted art should be used only within the body of the article where that art is specifically addressed. Therefore, in general, neither will be appropriate for an info box. For art within the article body, I would suggest floating possibilities on the talk page before incorporating it into the article, simply because people have strong opinions about this. -- Elphion (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually I don't mind putting non-free images into the infobox when there's a commentary in the text part of the article. We should however credit the artist in the caption and possibly point out any special circumstances. E.g. book illustrations, art that has been exhibited somewhere, etc. De728631 (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I've never understood why people want to add non-definitive images to the info box. I have no problem adding them to the article, as long as they are properly credited (which should make clear that they are not "official"). -- Elphion (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What is "non-definitive"? Even if we used images drawn by Tolkien himself (J. R. R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator) they would still be his personal interpretation of the matter. So in lieu of them we may as well use interpretations by professional artists. It works well for other articles, e.g. Tin Woodman, Robinson Crusoe or Sherlock Holmes. De728631 (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added an image to the infobox in the Smaug article. I hope that isn't too forward of me. This illustration was painted by Tolkien himself, so it's as definitive an image as could exist. Zeromus1 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New stub templates

For those who do stub tagging at existing or new pages, Fortdj33 has created two new stub templates: {{MiddleEarth-stub}} and {{MiddleEarth-char-stub}}. These are more specific than the old {{Tolkien-stub}} which refers to the legendarium in general. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated template and category

The old talk page template {{ME-disambiguation}} has been superseeded by {{ME-project|class=dab}} since I have replaced all instances of the former. Consequently Category:WikiProject Middle-earth disambiguation pages is now unpopulated. I propose therefore that both the template {{ME-disambiguation}} and its automated category be deleted. If noone objects I'm going to list them at Tfd and Cfd. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've now nominated the template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 21. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Hobbit (1985 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Hobbit (1985 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hobbit (1985 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

This film is the Soviet ballet-style adaptation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Hobbit Original Complete Soundtrack needs help getting approved

Greetings, we have a draft article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Hobbit Original Complete Soundtrack where the author isn't yet prepared with proper Sources, etc. If anyone else thinks this is worth having, some quick mentorship would be appreciated. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is already present in the article on the 2003 video game; apart from that that raw title is very disambiguous. I've left a note at the creator's talk page where I suggested a redirect to the game article. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

New sister project proposal

Hi, you may want to see this proposal for new project based on fiction. --213.155.255.148 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Four days later that page "Wikicanon" was "deleted per author request". I have no idea what it was about. --P64 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oxford spelling

See my note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards. -- Elphion (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review for Quenya

After a nomination from me in December, Quenya is currently being reviewed for Good Article status. The reviewer has however put the process on hold to allow for improvements. Actually he has left quite a few remarks and as of today we have been given one week to address the concerns. Please see the review page for specific comments. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to address as many points of the review as possible but help would be appreciated. De728631 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It's been a hard work, but now it is done: we have a new Good Article. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On the opposite side: Magic (Middle-earth)

While De pushes for Quenya, on the opposite side we have Magic (Middle-earth) which is an awful article. I've made a start on re-arranging it but it's going to need a hell of a lot of work if anyone has time. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment

...hasn't been updated since October 2006...six years ago. i.e. it has no discussion of inline referencing nor the introduction of the C-class rating which exists for substantive articles with sections lacking inline referencing. - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ for what the latest global rating scale looks like. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Braincricket (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

template:Middle-earth Labelled Map

{{Middle-earth Labelled Map}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Just a heads-up to everyone that there is a requested move here. Someone more knowledgeable about Tolkien's works than I should probably chime in. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Animals and monsters living in Arda

There's a rather complete list of animals and monsters living in Arda in the book Middle-Earth Role Playing game published by ICE. I don't know whether they were (at least partly) based on Tolkien's works (and thus they can be added to the list) or they were fully created by the publisher of the book.--Carnby (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war brewing at Uruk-hai

The Uruk-hai article is under a bit of conflict. Anyone fancy heading over there to give a second / third opinion? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Differing versions of the legendarium

We obviously need to present them all in the article. But do we put the version of published Silmarillion first, or the final version? (We are currently somewhat inconsistent, e.g. having Gil-galad son of Orodreth son of Angrod, while sticking to the Silmarillion version of events where both Angrod and Aegnor are on Dorthonion.) Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone at home?? Double sharp (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is such a thing as a 'definitive' version, the differing accounts make for interesting topics and are great for adding to the 'character development' setting. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 20:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed, but the fact is we really need to choose one specific one for the first character biography section, and elaborate on the others in "character development". There's at least two obvious choices: Silm canon or HoME canon. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we use the Silm version for any first description since this was the first published version. HoME should be used for describing the character development. De728631 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I think we should rely on the Silm versions to define topics in the lead section because the Silm represents the "final" form of the stories (and names) which underwent many previous editorial revisions (e.g. the Solosimpi -> Teleri evolution). HoME is a great source for discussing publication history, character development, narrative evolution, etc. Braincricket (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
All right, so I'm going to start applying Gil-galad son of Fingon everywhere... :-) Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien Collection at Marquette U

J. R. R. Tolkien Collection now redirects to section 3.4 of our biography rather than to our Marquette University, whose recent split makes it entirely inappropriate.

See Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien Collection for more information including notes on current mentions of Tolkien in our Marquette pages, one of which our biography should link.

Perhaps manuscripts should be covered in our bibliography. See Talk: J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography#Manuscripts.

--P64 (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Music of The Lord of the Rings film series

The album covers depicted there are now subject of a non-free content review. Please feel free to comment. De728631 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:List of multimedia franchises#The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings

Input is needed at Talk:List of multimedia franchises#The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings, on the question of whether The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit constitute parts of a single multimedia franchise. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible history behind the name Durin

I was wondering if the name Durin could have been chosen by Tolkien with reference to the ancient Celtic tribe inhabiting southern England until about 4 A.D., the Durotriges. A lot of cities in that area have the "Dur" prefix such as Durnovaria (original name of Dorchester), Durweston, and others. My surname, Durborough/Durborow originates from this area. The Durotriges built the earthen mound forts that helped then to temporarily (but unsuccessfully) defend themselves against the invading Romans who conquered them around 4 A.D. 71.228.186.109 (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Christopher Tolkien and several scholars almost all dwarf names were inspired the "Catalogue of Dwarves" in the Poetic Edda. And "Durinn" is one of them (see this quote). De728631 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the root 'Dur(r)-" means in Old Norse, but with -inn on the ending it could mean "the hard one" is the root means the same...... most of those dwarfnames have real meanings (e.g. Gandalf - "magical elf", "elf of magic"). that being said I'm juxtaposing the French (Frankish maybe?) meaning of "dur"..... "dyr" in modern Norse is "animal" (cf. "deer"). Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Employing a lot of OR and these sources [2][3], one could think that Durinn is the past participle of Old Norse (or Icelandic for that matter) dúra [to sleep, nap], i.e. "(one who) slept". Reversely, this would even fit into Tolkien's origin of the dwarves who were laid to sleep under the mountains by Aule until Illúvatar made his own "children". De728631 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eye of Sauron#Requested move

I have requested to move the disambiguation page, Eye of Sauron, to a disambiguation title in order to redirect that title to Sauron. Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Old Forest

In the last week or so I've reviewed the Old Forest article in response to the tag/flag, 'This article may require clean-up. The specific problem is: repetitive." The tag (or whatever it's called) has been there since 2012.

I've hopefully removed the repetitious bits, and I've expanded other information and have added new sections. I'm not sure if the article can be graduated from Start-Class, but it's a lot better than it was.

Can the tag please be removed? (I don't know how to do this.) 203.6.146.5 (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with the repetitions and for your general edits. But I've now changed the tag because the article still needs more mentioning of the Old Forest's coverage by real-life sources. The rather short section on adaptations seems to contain some synthesis or original research, and the "Hobbits vs Old Forest" part appears to be a bit too detailed for encylopedical uses. De728631 (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Update needed

Alan Lee (illustrator) has illustrated some Middle-earth books since 1990 and handled concept design for the Peter Jackson films. His biography needs update at least regarding the ongoing Hobbit film series.

So I consulted our The Hobbit (film series) and found that it too needs update. The long sections on The Hobbit under original director del Toro (1.2-1.4 and part of 1.6) should be reduced. Anyway they need careful attention to grammatical tense and temporal standpoint. (The sentences before and after Del Toro meets with Lee and other Lord of the Rings artists --whose contributions may or may not have been dropped by actual director Jackson-- begin "The Elves will also..." and "He has also considered...".) Perhaps the idiom "would have verbed" should be used only where we know that del Toro's film would have been different in some respect because Jackson didn't verb or verbed differently. ("Del Toro would have redesigned the Goblins and Wargs[16] and the Mirkwood spiders would also have looked different from Shelob.[35]")

--P64 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Help needed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jens Hansem (jeweller) (creator of LOTR film ring)

If anyone wants to help support a novice editor on a Tolkien topic, this draft needs some mentoring: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jens Hansem (jeweller). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris Seeman

Draft:Chris Seeman is a draft space page related to this WikiProject. If you have any independent reliable sources to add to this article, we may be able to get it moved into article space.

If you are interested in helping out with more drafts, please see my list of draft space pages, and help me reach my goal of eventually getting them all to article space! BOZ (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Hello fellow Tolkien readers! Could any of you have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Woodland Realm? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Minas Morgul

There is an ongoing discussion at Minas Morgul about the notability of the article. Apparently being referenced in 3rd party works is not good enough to establish notability unless they deal with the work in a real world context. If you have anything to contribute it would be much appreciated. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This project maintains two lists of pages at Portal:Middle-earth/Pages and Portal:Middle-earth/Related pages. The blurb at the top says that the lists include deliberate links to disambiguation pages. I've noticed that several editors have used disambiguation tools to "fix" the links, despite the instructions at the top.

I *think* that a good way to stop this happening would be to move them to the Wikipedia namespace, to be subpages of the Wikiproject instead of subpages of the Portal. Any comments? If no-one objects I will move them in a few days. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've now moved them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Pages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Related pages and restored the links to the disambiguation pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A Walking Song

Because this is probably the best people for alternative viewpoints, I listed A Walking Song at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Walking Song. I believe that the song was used in part for the soundtrack but it's not listed nor explained on the soundtrack page and so I can't find anything about it in that way. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Middle-earth at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Middle Men

cf. Men of Twilight Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Middle-earth Projects and WP:PLOTPRESENT

Another editor has indicated that "per long standing consensus, Middle-earth projects do not follow WP:PLOTPRESENT". Why is this? Where can this consensus be read? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been in the MOS[4] for ages. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 21:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
[5] Here is a discussion from a few years ago. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 21:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I get it. It's because the plots are part of a larger fictional history. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Question: Does this include articles on original characters that were created solely for the feature films? Or solely for the literary material? Nightscream (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall that there is an official position of the project on this, but I would say that we should treat original characters like any other film characters, i.e. we use present tense for them and their plot. At least the original characters shouldn't be treated as part of the larger fictional history. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
whilst I agree with the sentiment, doesn't that open a can of worms re using Oxford English in those articles too? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 22:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I dunno. Are there any special requirements for plot summaries when using Oxford English? Or do you mean American/NZ film character concepts vs Oxford English article text? De728631 (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The Hobbit (film series) specifies that it should be written in British English for instance, really is there any need to try and enforce this when its an American funded New Zeland production? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. If you ask me we should again divide the adaptions from the treatment of the canon material. While it's desirable to have a uniform date format etc. let's not restrict the articles that deal mainly with film content to any specific variety of English. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Info box images.

a user has added an image to Radagast, citing Albus Dumbledore amongst others as example articles where adaptations of the character are used in the info box see here. Is it time to revist our view on these images as this seems to crop up every few years. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that there is varying inconsistency in the use of the inboxes in Tolkien's legendarium. The characters pages are filled with info-boxes that have inconsistent images. For instance, Treebeard uses an image by an external artists impressions, akin to fan-art. Smaug uses one of Tolkien's illustrations, where as Lonely Mountain has an "artists" interpretation. Other pages, like Gandalf and Arnor have no image, where Gondor uses the shield or crest of the city. This inconsistency is a problem, and guidelines should be established for a constant and visually appealing set of entires. Obviously, the original author's illustration should be the first used image, but info boxes serve an important purpose. --Emnp3 (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Tom


Personally, I can't stand a lot of the crappy fan art and would rather see either, no images or images from Tolkien or the books, I think putting film images in the infoboxes is wrong (I think they would fail fair-use for this as we're using them to pretty up the article rather than to display something specific), we attempt to keep the literature character information separate from the film specifics and having the film image in the info box confuses this. The Harry Potter articles are not good examples to go off, they confuse the books and the films and make it difficult to see what is 'original' and what is 'derivative'. As the images are on the articles, under adaptations section I think that is enough. We've been through this discussion a couple of times over the last 10 years and I think it's about time we agree on a consistent way forward. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this is an important thing to establish. I mean no offense when I say this, but by perusing the previous discussions that concern this issue, it seems that you, GimliDotNet, have been the main and only (save one case) proponent of removing all images from the info boxes. We will agree to disagree on the appropriateness of Jackson images, but I think this may require several other opinions. Whilst you may have your own opinions of the other Wikipedia communities, it is important to learn from others. Peter Jackson's interpretation of the characters should be presented as any other movie or film director/producer's work should be. --Emnp3 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Gimli is right. We can't use film images for simple purposes of illustration in an infobox because they're all fair use. This would require that the article was about the specific depiction of one character or landscape in the Jackson films, and not about the general Tolkien character, location, item, etc. For the same reason the current usage of non-free art in Gondolin's infobox is against our criteria for non-free media because while Ted Nasmith is a notable Tolkien artist, the image as such is not discussed in the article. As to fan art, I wouldn't use it either because these drawings are mostly bad quality and would belong an adaptations section anyway. The same goes for the illustration in Treebeard: there is no reason whatsover why this one should be prominently displayed in the infobox while other fair use images are shown further down belown in the article. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


This has been the defacto standard since before my time Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Standards#Images

if available, place book illustrations first in the article, especially in infoboxes. Screenshots and other images from adaptations properly belong in an Adaptations section.

GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 21:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it seems that someone has deleted an entry in this thread that I posted, and replaced it with their own. I believe that we should have a bigger discussion about this issue. just because something is defacto, it doesn't mean that it's correct. Is there a way to have a discussion that includes more contributors here. Just because some contributors have different opinions of other sections of Wikipedia (Harry Potter, etc.) it does not make them the common denominator in decision making, nor the final decision maker. Is that a fair request? --Emnp3 (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just noticed that somehow I deleted your comment with this edit. That was not intended and I don't know how that entire paragraph of your got overwritten. I do agree though that we could need a fresh discussion with more input. Maybe you could crosspost a notice at WT:WikiProject Books and WT:WikiProject Film. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I remember that when I opened the edit window I was replying directly below Gimli's post. What might have happened here is that you began writing your reply while I was still typing and somehow the system failed to recognise the upcoming edit conflict. I've never seen this before but I wouldn't clear any valid messages written by other editors. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gimli about most fan art, and the general inappropriateness of (and copyright issues with) film captures outside the adaptations section since it is in general unrepresentative of the books. Quality art (preferably by Tolkien) is useful for the articles; the rest is distraction. I find even the heraldry cruft overdone, as it often doesn't stick to what Tolkien describes or what his sketches indicate he may have had in mind. These articles should be primarily about Tolkien's work; WP is not meant to be a showcase for amateur artists. -- Elphion (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fifth line of Ring-inscription Black Speech?

Reading the article Black Speech, I clicked on the Other Languages:Esperanto link and was shocked to find the Ring-inscription described as comprising five lines, the fifth being a purported Bl.Sp. version of the last line of the full Ring-rhyme, "In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie":

uzg-Mordor-ishi amal fauthut burgûli

I ran a Google search of that text and found just five hits, all in Wikipedia. They're listed below, with the corresponding sentence from each. I'm fluent in Esperanto, and that sentence translates as

The sole example of the "pure" Black Speech to appear in Tolkien's works is the inscription on the "One Ring": The poem of the Rings of Power.

My Spanish is good enough to equate that version to the same translation, and the Catalan and Galician as well; and the Basque looks to be structured the same, including the names.

But that fifth line, the last of the Ring-rhyme, is not part of the Ring-inscription, and the text should not state or imply that it is. And where did the Black Speech version come from?

I can fix this in Esperanto, but not in Spanish or its Ibero-Romance kin, let alone Basque.

  • Spanish
    • El único ejemplo de lengua negra «pura» que aparece en las escrituras de Tolkien es la inscripción del Anillo Único: el poema de los Anillos de Poder.
  • Basque
  • Catalan
    • L'únic exemple de llengua negra "pura" que apareix en les escriptures de Tolkien és la inscripció de l'Anell Únic: el poema dels anells de poder.
  • Galician
    • O único exemplo de lingua negra "pura" que aparece nos escritos de Tolkien é a inscrición do Anel Único: o poema dos Aneis de Poder.
  • Esperanto
    • La nura ekzemplo de la "pura" nigra lingvo kiu aperas en la verkaro de Tolkien estas la enskribo en la "Ununura Ringo": La poemo el la Ringoj de Povo.

If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I suspect this was reconstructed for the Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor game. At least I have found the full poem in Black Speech (and Sindarin and Quenya) at the Shadow of Mordor Wikia. As to original Black Speech, the inscription on the Ring and some Orkish cursing are the only published corpus which has been listed by Fauskanger. De728631 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you. I will use this ref. --Thnidu (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed this in the Esperanto wiki  – Nigra lingvo (Black Speech) and its Talk page  – but the other four languages' articles must be fixed by those who can. There's a note at the bottom of the Esperanto page that the article uses text translated from the Spanish page. --Thnidu (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Thnidu: Thanks for fixing the Esperanto article. I have no idea of Hispanic languages let alone Basque, so yes, the people over there need to fix that themselves. De728631 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Thnidu: Thanks for your help Thnidu, I fix the articles in the other wikis (I assumed that the people of the Basque and Galician Wikipedias would understand my explanation in Spanish). -- Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Remux: Thank you, Remux. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article Elanor Gardner

Please contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elanor Gardner discussion. The question is whether the subject of the article has notability as per the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Barad-dûr - Portrayal in Adaptations

The Barad-dûr article has a description of the portrayal of Barad-dûr in The Lord of the Rings movies by Peter Jackson. Am I correct in thinking this should really include relevant published comments on the portrayal of Barad-dûr by film critics rather than Wikipedia editors views? I appreciate that Barad-dûr may not be mentioned in any film critics reviews, but I can have a look!

Many thanks for your time

Lord Gorthol (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it is customary to add a short description of portrayals in notable works, and these don't necessarily have to be supplemented by material from the critics. In this case I agree though that there is a lot of original research that doesn't belong here. It would be great if you could have a look for any particular reviews. De728631 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The subject of that article could fail to meet the WP:GNG and so shouldn't be a standalone article in the first place. AadaamS (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi All, I've now looked at about 10 film reviews for The Return of the King (2003), in the hopes that one of them would have mentioned Barad-dûr to support a discussion of its portrayal in the Adaptations section (in particular the absence of the Window of the Eye, and the use of the Eye of Sauron above the tower which is mentioned as more of a metaphor in the books). I can report back that usually reviews are more concerned with the portrayal of characters than of places and none of them mentioned Barad-dûr specifically at all. This was not entirely unexpected! However, I have found other information which may be of interest to those needing published material for the Adaptations section for a character or place appearing in The Return of the King. Please see below for a list of the more useful articles for general purposes:
  • IMDb
http://www.imdb.com/reviews/0167260
Reviewer feels Frodo, Gollum and especially Sam are representative of the three films.
  • The Guardian Newspaper website
Reviewer thinks Christopher Lee played Saruman's part very well and shouldn't have been cut out of the film.
  • rogerebert.com
Praises the portrayal of Minas Tirith.
  • Rollingstone.com
Mentions that Sean Astin is very good.
  • New York Times
nytimes.com
Gives a very detailed review...
  • Wall Street Journal
http://www.wsj.com/
Loves the visual effects.
  • www.reelviews.net
Nearly all the main characters are mentioned, with particular praise for Andy Serkis.
  • San Francisco Chronicle (Mick LaSalle)
http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/With-a-little-gold-ring-and-great-big-dreams-2545789.php
Mick feels the movie is too faithful to the book!


There is a list of all the 330 reviews of The Return of the King movie at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ql_op_5

Lord Gorthol (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hithlum

hello Middle-earth wikieditors, i have recommended merging the Hithlum article into Beleriand as it is of low import and not notable as a stand alone article(?). I have also copied all the info from the article to Talk:Beleriand. Is there anyone available to incorporate any relevant info into the Hithlum subsection? thanks:) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mordor on Charon

Just FYI, the newly named region on the moon of Pluto, Charon, called "Mordor" has an article, which you may be interested in. Mordor (Charon) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Project ratings.

The page Palantír is graded B on our quality scale, but another user has raised concerns about the quality of the article. We have a lot of articles in our project scope that are crufty, could be merged or deleted as not having real-world significance. Is it worth getting a task force together to tackle them? GimliDotNet (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Some projects use grade B for articles that some elsewhere grade Stub or Start, deemed to be crippled by some flaw that should render them satisfactory to no reader. Offhand I think all grades except those automatically displayed for readers (Good, A, and Featured?) should be considered internal matters.
Before my time, I understand, grade B was the lowest above Start. Perhaps this project uses grade B by default on many articles that predate the introduction of C (the grade distribution and the relative inactivity during the 2010s provide work support). Then it might be useful to downgrade a majority to C --if the judgment can be done quickly.
Offhand I guess this project can valuably use grades B (now 110 pages) and C (now 30) specifically to identify persistence of the in-universe flaw. There are plenty of grades available, relative to the number of uses they now fulfill. Right? --P64 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Suilad!

In working on the Marian hymn "Hail Queen of Heaven, the Ocean Star", I came across sourced observations relating it to A Elbereth Gilthoniel. I did not put a project template on the Talk page, as I am not a member, and am not sure if it warrants one. In lieu of that I bring this to your attention. Le hannon! Mannanan51 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I wouldn't go as far as placing Hail Queen of Heaven, the Ocean Star in the scope of the Middle-earth project, but your references are most welcome. I added your observations to A Elbereth Gilthoniel. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Afd

Preceded by, Followed by

There seem to be multiple understandings of what these parameters in template:infobox book are for. Some are using them to thread the fictional works by publication date, others include only the Middle-earth books, still others use an order I don't understand at all. The template documentation seems to be saying that the books should be ordered by in-narrative chronology -- in which case several of the books would not be included at all, since they are not set in Middle-earth. And of course, chronology is problematic for books like Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, which cover several different periods. The Narnia books use publication order, since most scholars agree that that is the appropriate reading order. I think that's probably not the right answer here. Thoughts? -- Elphion (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See, e.g., recent edits to Farmer Giles of Ham, The Father Christmas Letters, Smith of Wootton Major, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. -- Elphion (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted some of the edits for the reasons you noted. If the parameter is to be used I would suggest linking the Middle-earth titles in order of publication date, omitting items with minimal narrative content. I appreciate that the choice will be a little subjective, but would probably be more useful to a reader than every last Middle-earth-related item. Deagol2 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

How do casual users interpret the labels preceded_by and followed_by? I think we need to keep that in mind. Also one notes that these labels are used in the works of other authors to designate publication order, irrespective of whether the stories are related. E.g. Oliver Twist is stated to be 'followed by' Nicholas Nickleby. To cite an example closer to home, Roverandom is stated to be 'followed by' The Children of Húrin, which only makes sense if one is talking about publication order. I propose that preceded_by & followed_by be used for publication order, irrespective of storyline or Middle-earth relevance, AND that separate labels be added for 'prequel' and 'sequel' where relevant. I suggest that the relevant cases are The Hobbit (prequel The Quest of Erebor, sequel The Lord of the Rings) and The Lord of the Rings (prequel The Hobbit, sequel The New Shadow), with a parenthetical note '(unfinished)' after the references to The Quest of Erebor & The New Shadow. [BTW The Adventures of Tom Bombadil is not a sequel to LotR: some (most?) of the poems refer to events long before LotR.] I believe that this proposal 0achieves the goals of providing information to users which is informative, consistent, concise, objective and user-friendly, and does not make presumptions about what 'would probably be more useful to a reader'. Cheers Jungleboy63 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In regards to what can constitute a series in Tolkien's writings, the Tolkien scholars Verlyn Flieger & Douglas A. Anderson note that On Fairy-Stories is "the hinge and pivot between his two most popular and influential books, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings." (Introduction to their expanded edition of On Fairy-Stories, 2008) Jungleboy63 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jungleboy63 and Elphion. The template:infobox book instructions are clear: The preceded_by and followed_by fields list sequels or serials, not other works by the author. It’s reasonable to open up a broader debate about the infobox template over on its Talk page (if there hasn’t already been a hundred of those debates), but we shouldn’t be changing its usage ourselves. The fact that some articles for other works of literature misuse the template is no argument for misusing it ourselves, either. If changes were to be made, I wouldn’t advocate expanding usage of what already exists; I would advocate adding new fields to meet that purpose.
Reasons I object to expanding the usage of the existing fields:
  • Instructions already exist; we shouldn’t be violating them. If we intend to change or expand the usage, we need to get community consensus.
  • The article is about the book, not about the author. Authors’ bibliographies are available elsewhere.
  • Nuances and semantics of the expanded field would be far muddier than those of sequel/serial. Tolkien, and many authors, wrote stories that appeared singly in some magazine, followed by appearance in some compendium of that same story plus many others, some of which were first published in that compendium and some of which had been published before. That’s just one example of the complications, and I can come up with many, many more. Who knows what ought to be included in the ordering, what an “ordering” might mean, or why they even need to be “ordered”. Meanwhile the reason for current instructions for preceded_by/followed_by seem clear to me: The reader wants to know what to read before and after as part of the “same” story. I understand and appreciate that people can argue ad nauseam about how to apply current preceded_by/followed_by semantics to The Silmarillion, for example, but in point of fact, no one reads The Silmarillion before The Lord of the Rings, for reasons that echo the reasons for their publication order. When we get into the reasons for orderings, we get answers for how to order in difficult cases, and that should prevent us from resorting to some pedantic but meaningless heuristic. In the case of preceded_by/followed_by, the purpose is to inform the reader of what to read before or after, not to express some analysis of narrative. An analysis of narrative has uses, but those uses don’t have anything to do with the purpose of an infobox.
Thanks. Strebe (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

So that would suggest something like the following threading (which I offer only as a point of departure):

  • Thread I: Hobbit => LotR (possibly through the 3 sub-volumes) => Silm => UT. Possibly include Children of Hurin and Beren and Luthien before UT?
  • Thread II: Adventures => Homecoming => On Fairy Stories => Leaf => Farmer Giles => Smith => Roverandom [items from Tales from the Perilous Realm, though the order has not been consistent over the several editions].
  • (leaving other items unthreaded)

-- Elphion (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you will get many different opinions on an order for Thread 1. The more titles you add, the worse it gets. I can't see the logic in the ordering in Thread 2, or how it would be useful to a reader. Deagol2 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've looked at the template:infobox book instructions (thanks for the link); these actually state (e.g. for followed_by), "Title of subsequent book in a series or a sequel". It does not appear to define 'series'; nor does it state what to do if the subject book is followed by one book in a series, but its sequel is a later book. The variety of suggestions above, all of which have merit, suggests that 'series' can be highly subjective. This seems to lead us back to the relatively objective 'series' of Tolkien's published works (essentially those which have separate Wikipedia articles; this includes e.g. Leaf by Niggle but would exclude e.g. those listed in J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography#Academic and other works), in order of first publication. BTW The Silmarillion is surely much more of a prequel to LotR (and The Hobbit) than than a sequel? Jungleboy63 (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I’m with Deagol2 here. “Thread II” makes no sense to me. These works are not a series by any stretch of the term in publication parlance or by any conventional notion of the term*, nor in any way that a reader would find useful. Likewise, no conventional sense of the word ‘series’ puts Leaf in with the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. If someone reads Book A in a purported series and then reads Book B, but cannot see the connection, then that order fails the clear purpose of preceded_by/followed_by. It also opens up endless avenues for debate, again to no value for the reader. We’re going to have enough debate over ordering for works that do fit the normal connotations of “series” and “sequels”. What drives this desire to impose an order onto things that have no meaningful ordering?
  • series (n.): A set of books, maps, periodicals, or other documents published in a common format or under a common title. New Oxford American Dictionary Strebe (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that threading all the books serves little purpose, and that's not the intent of the preceded_by, followed_by. Thread I is a reasonable illustration of how they're supposed to be used. I suggested Thread II only because those works have become associated by their inclusion in various anthologies (most recently Tales from the Perilous Realm) -- they're sort of like the "Minor Arcana", if you will; and a reader might find the association useful. (I'm remembering a friend who liked Tolkien and wanted to know whether he'd written any stories beyond the M-e material.) But I'll be the first to admit that the association is tenuous and the order quite arbitrary. I take your point re "series", but I think we can relax the dictionary definition a bit. Under that definition, the Narnia books weren't really a series, as there was not a common format or a common title. ("The Chronicles of Narnia" was an after-thought in later editions.) -- Elphion (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the trouble here arose out of a sense of "relatedness" that editors want to convey but have no mechanism except that of "ordering". I agree that Thread II books (for the most part) are related to each other, or are a collection, in some sense (although different hermeneutic systems would arrive at different inclusion/exclusion sets). Relatedness does not imply any ordering, a conclusion I sense in your comments. Hence it sounds like we pretty much agree, pending Jungleboy63's latest thoughts. For my own part, I emphasize, again, that the articles about individual titles are about the book, not about the author, and therefore that the info boxes ought to convey direct relatedness to the title in ways obviously helpful to the typical reader. I suspect we can reach consensus that preceded_by/followed_by intends to convey reading order for Tolkien's Middle Earth epic, given the instructions for infobox, and likely that the reading order mirrors publication order. (Thank heavens we are not dealing with the endless wrangling of Star Wars fans over I, II, III, IV, V, VI vs IV, V, VI, I, II, III!) The enterprise of organizing by collections of various sorts ought to be left to lists, and, as always, ought to be backed by scholarly citations. Relatedness is not trivial. Thanks all for your attention to these details. Strebe (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the many & thoughtful further contributions. If my reading is correct, it seems there’s agreement or consensus on the following 7 points:-

(1) The Hobbit article is about the literary work.
(2) The sequel to the The Hobbit is LotR (and the prequel to LotR is The Hobbit), and this information needs to be retained in the two respective info-boxes.
(3) Few if any of Tolkien’s other works have a ‘sequel’ or ‘prequel’.
(4) We would like Wikipedia to provide users with convenient links to related topics, within reason, and as unambiguously and consistently as possible.
(5) At least one ‘thread’ of Tolkien’s works is desirable. The ‘preceded_by’ and ‘followed_by’ can be used for this purpose, provided this is done within Wikipedia guidelines.
(6) In considering what works to include on the thread(s), we can ignore Tolkien’s minor academic works (i.e. the ones listed in the Tolkien bibliography article). To paraphrase Deagol2, we don’t want every last Tolkien-related item.
(7) There are a number of meritorious suggestions for the sequencing of works on their thread. There also difficulties because of the tortuous web of Tolkien’s works [except of course the situation in (2) above].
However while there’s consensus on these general points, the devil is in the detail.
(1a) The Hobbit as a literary work has a number of significant aspects. Two key ones are: it’s a work of children’s fiction, and it’s set in Middle-earth. This introduces an immediate dilemma in considering what the “reader wants to know” and/or “what to read before or after”. But these two aspects of The Hobbit are not the only aspects which users of Wikipedia may be interested in. The Hobbit is a work of prose: where did Tolkien go next with his writing style? Similarly some users may be interested in particular motifs. Other users may interested in the textual history of The Hobbit. Some users may simply be interested in “what literary work did Tolkien come out with next?”. In my view, all of these aspects have validity when considering what the “reader wants to know” and/or “what to read before or after”. The info-box should cater for as broad a range of users as possible, without overloading it.
(2a) The ‘sequel’ of a literary work is the continuation of its story. However sequels don’t have to be in narrative form; one of the other possible forms is ‘document’. Arguably therefore, the immediate sequel (and prequel) to The Hobbit is contained in the Appendices of LotR!
(3a) Both LotR and Farmer Giles had sequels, but they were never finished (indeed didn’t go beyond a few pages). However they have been published: The Peoples of Middle-earth#Part Four: Incomplete Tales and Farmer Giles of Ham#50th Anniversary Edition.
(4a) Users of Wikipedia could easily (mis)interpret ‘followed by’ to mean merely the next published literary work. Indeed, this is how it’s used by the editors of articles for some other authors’ works, and the sky hasn’t fallen in. I’ve already cited Oliver Twist, but another example is Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. Its info-box states it's “followed by” Around the Moon, even though Around the Moon was neither a sequel nor a prominent work. Furthermore the info-box for Around the Moon states that it was preceded_ by Twenty Thousand League, even though the prequel of Around the Moon was From the Earth to the Moon (this relationship is revealed in the main text of the article for Around the Moon). There’s lots of debate on the talk pages for these other authors’ works, but it seems no-one has objected to using ‘followed by’ as ‘next published literary work’. (Incidentally the usage of ‘followed_by’ etc. in the articles for Dickens’s and Verne’s books is not my doing: I have never edited the articles for any non-Tolkien books, nor have I entered their debates.)
Thus having The Hobbit followed_by LotR (and LotR preceded_by The Hobbit) could mislead some users of Wikipedia into thinking Tolkien published nothing in between.
(5a) I agree with Elphion that the Wikipedia guidelines seem to allow some flexibility. (Indeed one of Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that it has no firm rules.) Strebe also seems to desire some flexibility, in order to incorporate what the “reader wants to know” and/or “what to read before or after”. Both of Strebe’s goals are very important, however both are also rather subjective, except in the prequel / sequel sequence described in (2) above. Furthermore it seems clear that a number of users [e.g. those in (4a) above, and some of those in this debate] “want to know” more than pure prequel/sequels.
On the matter of threads, and “what to read before or after”, here’s a contribution from Tolkien himself: “the link between the Silmarillion and the Hobbit world” [i.e. The Hobbit & LotR] consists of “the ‘Rings of Power’ ... [and] the ‘Fall of Númenor’...” [Letters no. 115 p.130]. So if we follow Tolkien, then The Hobbit should be preceded_by RoP and FoN. (As indicated earlier, I’m in favour of The Quest of Erebor; indeed it fits even a narrow definition of ‘prequel’.)
(6a) While we’ve agreed to exclude minor academia, we have not resolved what to do with Tolkien’s ‘mid-level’ books, such as Niggle, On Fairy-Stories and Farmer Giles. Elphion proposes to place these ’minor arcana’ on a secondary thread. The drawback is that this secondary thread would be invisible from The Hobbit article (and LotR). Users could be misled into thinking that Tolkien published nothing between The Hobbit and LotR. They would be deprived. For instance Hobbit readers interested in further light-hearted reading, or more on dragons, would miss out on Farmer Giles. Not all users are limited to Hobbits or Middle-earth when considering “what to read after”.
Invisible too would be On Fairy-Stories, which I’ve already cited as “the hinge and pivot”. OFS is also linked to The Hobbit in another way: it’s derived from a prestigious lecture that Tolkien was offered, hot on the heels of the successful publication of The Hobbit. OFS reveals Tolkien’s views on what makes a fantasy-story successful (and on more specific matters such as elves and dragons).
Users interested in stories of journeys or trees would miss out on Leaf by Niggle. But Niggle has deeper connections to The Hobbit, and LotR. When Tolkien began drafting a sequel to The Hobbit, Niggle was the first fully-formed work to result. As Tolkien stated, “it arose from my pre-occupation with The Lord of the Rings, the knowledge that it would be finished in great detail or not at all, and the fear ... that it would be ‘not at all’...” [Letters no. 199 p.257]. This in itself suggests that Niggle deserves to be on the thread between The Hobbit and LotR. I would add that the realization of the Tree (within Niggle) presages the wonder and success of LotR, and the flowering of Middle-earth that continues to this day, including in Wikipedia, and amongst all of you, my fellow-editors.
(7a) Tolkien confessed that The Silmarillion “lacks a thread on which its diversity can be strung” (Letters no.276 p.360). However in relation to the particular problem of sequencing Tolkien’s literary works, we have a solution, as proposed by Deagol2: namely the date of first publication. This solution is objective and simple, and it provides consistency. It solves, for instance, the dilemmas noted by Elphion above (QS & UT problematics; “Thread II”). The order of first publication is the order of release approved by Tolkien (or his literary executors). This is a genuine series of related events in real time. The books are the members of this series. This is one series to rule them all.
Some have suggested that “threading all the books serves little purpose”. Perhaps one may wish to note that most of Tolkien’s books are already threaded (a situation which was in place before I considered the matter). It would be nice if we could tie up the loose threads (the purpose of consistency). Furthermore, a single thread enables users to explore Tolkien’s writings book by book, perhaps leading them into new or unexpected knowledge (the purposes of enlightenment and convenience).
Endeavouring to take into account all these matters and everyone’s comments, I (re)propose a simple compromise solution which shouldn’t cause the sky to fall in. It involves merely: (a) two new labels (for ‘’The Hobbit’’ and ‘’LotR’’ only), which won’t over-burden the info-boxes involved; and (b) the addition of a few pieces of data to Wikipedia’s countless content. The proposal is summarized in the following table (‘@’ indicates new data in the info-box; this and other abbreviations are not intended to be used in the actual info-boxes):-
label The Hobbit info-box LotR info-box
preceded by [blank: invisible label] @ Homecoming of Beorhtnoth
prequel @ Quest of Erebor The Hobbit
followed by @ Leaf by Niggle The Adventures of Tom Bombadil
sequel The Lord of the Rings @ The New Shadow (unfinished)
This solution retains the direct link between ‘’The Hobbit’’ and ‘’LotR’’, and also links both books to the thread of the rest of Tolkien’s corpus, thus catering both to Middle-earthers (indeed providing additional info) and to those with a broader interest in Tolkien’s other books. (P.S. apologies that table hasn't quite formatted as expected.)

Regards, Jungleboy63 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Race

The info boxes for most characters include the label 'race', e.g. Boromir is a 'Man'. The info boxes should of course not include every known fact about a character, however I believe it would be helpful to note the character's 'sub-race'. In Boromir's case it would be 'Gondorian'. Gondor is a key part of Boromir's identity, but it's not mentioned at all in his info box. The mention could be achieved by a separate label, but it seems that the information could be included more simply, conveniently & concisely by adding 'of Gondor' to his race label. Similarly (e.g.) Saruman should be noted as an Istari, Aragorn as one of the Dúnedain, Sam as a Hobbit 'of the Shire' (not e.g. of Bree). While on the subject of Hobbits, I think the introductions for the 4 main Hobbits of LotR should indicate they are members of the Fellowship of the Ring (characters), a key group of characters in the story. Cheers Jungleboy63 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Gondor(ian) is certainly not a sub-race. If at all, we should group them into the Dúnedain just like their northern relatives. Likewise, the Istari are not a race of Maia but Tolkien calls them an "order" like a guild of mages. And e. g. what should we do with the Rohirrim? They are Men of the North in a broader sense just like the Laketown people. Adding all this to infoboxes would mean adding unnecessary detail that will quickly become confusing. We always need to keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are written for a broad readership that doesn't necessarily know about the intricate details of Tolkien's Men of the West, the Easterlings and Dunledings, let alone the sundering of the elves. MOS:WAF-INFO sums it up: "infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory." De728631 (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree: for the "race" parameter, we should stay at a high level (like Man, Hobbit, Elf, Dwarf, Ent, Eagle, Orc, Troll, Dragon, Maia). Anything farther just gets into the weeds. The minute points belong in the articles, not in the infoboxes. -- Elphion (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

userbox

Just wanted to share my new userbox. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice username. :) ★Trekker (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Farmer Maggot AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmer Maggot. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Barliman Butterbur would seem a better candidate, but maybe there are plenty of scholarly works that mentions him too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Stratford Caldecott

Aiya. Below it a comment copied for the WP Catholicism Talk page. Help with Stratford Caldecott article please![edit] "Please help me improve my article about the late Stratford Caldecott. His work is of real importance, I believe, to contemporary Catholics, as he is something of a bridge between the church and the culture. His work cites great sources like Aquinas, Pieper, Balthasar, Chesterton...and he is cited by some other contemporary Catholic intellectuals. So he is a kind of hub of real interest, with a love for the church and the world. I am somehow not connecting with the 'use enough references' vibe on wiki, though he has been in the news, cited by many people, profiled on many sites he wrote for. I could really use your help! Here's a link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stratford_Caldecott CharOster (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)" The reviewer apparently felt that notability was not shown. However, seemingly noted for his writings re the spirituality of the LOTR, I post this here in case some here are familiar with his work. Hantanyel. Mannanan51 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive17/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Middle-earth, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Angels and Demons

Hello, WikiProject Middle-earth.

I know Ainur are sort of "gods" or "angelic beings", but my instinct is to remove them from the lists List of fictional angels and List of fictional demons. I think they fit well on List of deities in fiction though. I´d like to hear your opinions, removal good or bad? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I´ve changed my mind on "demons", but not angels. At least balrogs seems to have "demon" attached to them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Need sources for Maeglin article

Hey, thanks everyone for your contributions! Maeglin has had a CN tag on it since 2009. Can someone step up? Thanks :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added an external source so that tag can be removed. Still requires more work really. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation Check?

Hello, WikiProject Middle-earth. I would like to notify you of a problem I ran into while browsing Eregion yesterday. I have just explained the problem on that article’s talk page. – Jippe (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Race consistency

Can we get some consistency in how the infoboxes use "Race"?

At the moment we have:

Saruman: Maia; Radagast: Maiar; Gandalf: Maia (subset Istari)

Thorin Oakenshield: Dwarf; Dáin II Ironfoot: Dwarves

Celebrimbor: Elf; Glorfindel: Elves; Legolas: Sindar Elf; Thranduil: Elf (Sindarin)

Frodo Baggins: Hobbit; Samwise Gamgee: Hobbits; Peregrin Took: Hobbit (Fallohide branch)

Boromir: Man; Denethor: Men; Amandil: Man (Middle-earth); Éomer : Men of Rohan; Mouth of Sauron: Men (Black Númenóreans)

I think the parentheticals can go; what about choosing a single name for each race? (Preferably either consistently singular or plural.) Can we get a consensus on this?--Rxtreme (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be consistency. First of all we should remove the subbranches and allegiances that you put in parenthetics. The information about Fallohides, Stoors or even Uruk-hai should be left to the full text part of the article. After checking similar infoboxes for fictional characters, I found that singular seems to be the predominant use in the race/species slot: Chewbacca (Wookiee), Spock (Half-Vulcan), Neelix (Talaxian), Rubeus Hagrid (Half-giant), Imoen (Human). So I think we should use singular too. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Fall of Gondolin

FYI, several discussions about this article are occurring at talk:Fall of Gondolin -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien, A Descriptive Bibliography

I created the article J. R. R. Tolkien, A Descriptive Bibliography. It is currently a stub and does not have a cover picture or many sources. Please help me expand it and give comments on what info to add, etc. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive17&oldid=1142660480"