Talk:Middle-earth in motion pictures

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Middle-earth High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Archives

1

Grammatical construction uncomfortable to IP editors and others

User:Adamstom.97 has now reverted edits to a recently-added statement announcing a forthcoming film from three editors, including two IPs. The statement has been criticised in edit comments, and I'll say that I find the diction of the statement as uncomfortable as the IPs seem to have done. One of them wrote "Adam, it makes no sense to talk about things that won’t happen years from now as if they already happened. I pulled up a similar article about an upcoming project like this, and it is in the present tense too. It reads horribly the way you edited it. Leave it be." (my emphasis)

I think we need to redraft the announcement so that other editors find it more comfortable to read. Since you've rejected my minimal tweak to your draft, I suggest you propose an alternative wording, as the current draft is plainly not acceptable. If this were a vote it'd be 3 to 1 against; rather than going there, let's see if a few small changes can do the trick by consensus. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by voting. I am happy for suggestions on improving the wording as long as it doesn't violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I'm sure we can sort this to everyone's satisfaction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]