Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shortcut
Archive
Archives

Past discussions and issuses can be located by clicking on the archive links.

Front page · Main discussion · Standards · Things to do · Assessment · Templates
Images · Watchlist (Recent changes)

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The below articles in this section are no longer active merger candidates but most are still stubs or have been tagged for notability or in-universe style of writing.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

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)

Osgiliath and Hithlum and River Sirion and Torech Ungol and Reunited Kingdom

Osgiliath and Hithlum have been prodded for deletion by someone. 184.144.166.27 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also River Sirion , Torech Ungol , Reunited Kingdom 184.144.161.173 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

languages

Elvish languages (Middle-earth) and Languages of Arda have been proposed to be renamed, see Talk:Languages of Arda. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus for Tolkien's Elvish languages and move to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ages of Tolkien

Seemingly all the Ages of Tolkien have been nominated for deletion, see the joint nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Years of the Trees. 64.229.103.44 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings GA push

It has been suggested on the article talk to bring this formerly featured article back to attention by first making it a "Good" one. I've already fixed some holes in the referencing but I think we all should have a look at it before anyone nominates it for a check. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone been pushing this along? It seems a shame that the "One Article to bind them all" is stuck at "B". I've seen some continuing editing, but nothing like a sustained push. I wouldn't mind helping out. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Names and titles

I am hereby proposing that we remove "Names and titles" sections from articles and merge them into the infobox (unless certain ones can be sourced by reliable third-party sources, and such). Otherwise they look like nothing but trivia (and, dare I say it, fancruft). Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we need to remember to update the style guidelines if we get consensus though Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree - I believe it's useful to keep a list of names in the infobox as it may help readers when researching a character to realise that they also go under a different name (e.g. Strider/Aragorn, although I would hope everyone knows that one). Names and their meanings were very important to Tolkien and the way he created, used and changed them may be relevant to the creation, development, or very nature of the character concerned. This material may be best placed with 'Concept and creation' or the Summary or it may not and might be best placed in a stand alone section, so I think it is important to leave open the option to have a 'Names and titles' section. I'll go and have a look at Saruman later and see whether I think what's there should be merged into the rest of the article or kept as is. 4u1e (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Think I'd be happy merging the names section into concept and creation for Saruman. (Article I'm most familiar with!) 4u1e (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. If the goal is to avoid being too in-universe, then having such a list is surely not a great inclusion. The exceptions might be cases that would confuse a layperson (e.g. maybe remove references to Olorin in the gandalf article, but include a mention of 'Stormcrow', or remove Curunir/Curumo from the Saruman article but include Sharkey). If we were to do this, then maybe the Maiar article should index the various names of each, as such an article would want to relate more obscure information to that which is better known. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say a brief mention of Curunir is worth having in Saruman, but only because independent writers have noted the aptness of the translated name for the character. Not sure how many other characters that's true for. 4u1e (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not a great example then, but apart from Curunir it might be worth keeping the alternative names out of the main articles. I think it's case-dependent though...For articles about characters that come into play mainly in the less popular texts (e.g. Manwe), a list of alternative names might be more appropriate. Thoughts? 74.109.214.27 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If a name is particularly well-known, it can probably go into the lead. If someone really has noted the name somewhere (in, of course, a reliable source), then it should probably go in the article as well. Aside from that, all other names should be removed or added into the infobox, depending on what we decide. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I would keep all names in the infobox, not at least for the sake of the many redirects that do exist and would otherwise need explanation in the article. As for lists of alternative names like in Gandalf, I think we can do without them. But what was important in the process of a character's creation should naturally be mentioned in that section. De728631 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
So are we all agreed that sections that are essentially lists of names should not be included in character articles? I want to get this issue solved as soon as possible, you know. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, lists of names simply for the sake of listing them should not appear in the articles. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I also agree, FWIW. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Now hang on, do I get that right: Is a section on a character's name to be removed based on this? In most cases, I should imagine, Tolkien's own etymology for the name is to be found in exactly that section. In Legolas the entire etymology has gone. Removing the philological part from a ME article seems to me like removing the references to Ancient Greece / Greek from the Iliad. You gents certainly love the etymologies to Tolkien's names as much as I do, and probably know many of them better than I do. For the general reading public, however, I must hope that the etymologies (fictional though they be) are kept. Trigaranus (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(unindent). Unfortunately without third party discussion on the etymology it is stemming too close to both Original Research and Fan Cruft. (for example look at what was in the Nazgul article. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
In response to Trigaranus, the Legolas article still has etymological references in the "Concept and creation" section. What we don't like to see though, was a simple bullet list as in the previous Gandalf revisions. The common name of the character is still explained in the article but we don't need to flesh out every single alias that any of the peoples of Middle-earth gave to the protagonists of the stories. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I just want to point out that the target audience is the layperson. The number of people who delve quite so deep into the etymology and origin, as well as the changes to, the various names Tolkien employs, is quite small. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Differences between Films and Books

We need to remove the large chunks of text in articles that deal with differences between the films and the books. These are discouraged, many of them come across as rather precious and hardcore fan related moaning. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally I'd agree, although as always if referenced to good quality sources discussing the differences in a real world context then the material may be acceptable. There's an appendix in later editions of The Road to Middle-earth making comparisons between the books and the Jackson films, for example. 4u1e (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
My general question regards how much information should be included (i.e. how in depth each article should be). I agree that highlighting the differences is a bit beyond having, for instance, a description of the book portrayal AND a description of the movie portrayal. But, that brings another question to the fore: Is WP:M-e a project on the books primarily, which have been adapted into multiple different films? Or, is it a combination of the various media? If the latter, then articles discussing the movies at all should probably include info on the less popular animated versions, no? 74.109.214.27 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the project should only consider the books, but there is far and away more real world material available on the books than the films, I'd wager. The approach for any given article will vary. The Jackson films can no doubt support their own articles, but I can see little likelihood of a standalone article on Frodo (Peter Jackson films). In such cases, it's always going to be easiest to introduce the 'book version' first, then comment on all other areas in which the character has appeared (TV, radio and film). 4u1e (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you, the portrayals should just get discussed in the various articles in some consistent format. The question then I guess is what that format is, or what kinds of details to include & how much equal treatment should be afforded each representation. I suppose the Jackson films had the blessing of the Tolkien Estate; did the others? 74.109.214.27 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, they're still adaptations. 4u1e (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong in highlighting the differences between the original novels and the adaptions, provided though that such findings are backed up by reliable sources. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
My issue with highlighting differences is that there are many differences, as with any film, and any effort to highlight some by nature excludes others. This places a biased weight on the importance of certain differences in relation to others. While scholars may have written about one particular difference or another, I think it'd be difficult to find some definitive analysis in reliable scholarship. Of course, if this exists, I'm all for it being included. But, I think that writers might have selectively included differences to make a point, and I don't think citing those differences accomplishes the goal of this kind of section. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
But you'll agree that there are some major deviations from the original story that are obvious beyond fan related moaning and deserve to be noted. And as far as I recall, a good deal of these is already covered with quotes by PJ or other film people for why they did it that way. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely agree that there are major deviations (like the characterization of Faramir, the removal of Bombadil, etc). I think PJ is a good source to cite for this info, as he would be likely to address major discrepancies, but I'm just skeptical about selective inclusion based on editorial decisions about which differences matter. As I said (or maybe implied), I don't think the section is a bad idea, only that we should strive to source it well. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Concern

I had a mild NPOV concern with a few of the articles I was reading, which seem to present LOTR & other writings with a slightly Christian skew. Tolkien variously states that LOTR is perfectly reconcilable with Christianity and that it is not a Christian allegory, so I'm wondering whether this distinction should be addressed somehow to prevent readers from coming away with the impression that this is largely translatable into Christian religious texts. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that seems NPOV? Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll pull from the Saruman article since it's the one I've been looking at recently.

They are Maiar, envoys of the godlike Valar sent to challenge Sauron by inspiring the people of Middle-earth rather than by direct conflict.[7] Tolkien regarded them as being somewhat like incarnate angels.[8]

Evans has compared the character of Saruman to that of Satan in John Milton's Paradise Lost in his use of rhetoric and in this final refusal of redemption, "conquered by pride and hatred."[21]

I don't think these citations are invalid or inaccurate, but I think it presents a slightly biased picture that implies that Tolkien had angels and Christianity in mind when writing the Maiar, Valar ('godlike'?). There is certainly scholarship to suggest the relationship between Christian myth and these figures, but this is only one side of the coin. For instance, many scholars (including Tom Shippey and Gloriana St. Clair) have analyzed the impact of Norse myth on the development of these categories (Indeed, Tolkien himself calls Gandalf his 'Odinic wanderer'). While Tolkien did regard them as being somewhat like 'incarnate angels,' that doesn't mean he held them to be the same or even a facsimile. I understand that these are simplified explanations, but they are tailored to a demographic presumed to be primarily Christian, and I just think they imply things that aren't concrete about the status and role of these figures. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, then you should perhaps add the other side of the coin: what does Shippey say about Saruman and the Maiar in particular? As far as I know and have recently been reading, the Norse influences are more of a general kind as in heroic spirit and mythological races like dwarves and elves, etc. I for one don't see anything overly Christian in these two quotes from a single article. And as to "godlike?", there's a passage in Valar that reads "In The Book of Lost Tales (the earliest form of Tolkien's legendarium), the Valar are frequently referred to as 'Gods',...". That's not Wikipedia POV-pushing that's Tolkien. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well from what I've read the entire structure of the Ainur on M-e sort of mirrors some of the norse mythos (e.g. Gandalf as Odin, having multiple 'Gods' acting in the same space and sometimes in disagreement with one another, all with different primary functions). There are a few good works on this I will have to go find. I'm not questioning that Tolkien said 'godlike', I know he did. But we also know that he modified his conceptions as he wrote (modified heavily, I should say), so sourcing his initial notion might not present the most accurate depiction of the final version. As I said, I sourced 2 quotes from an article I had been recently reading to explain a thought I had about a possible skewed portrayal of the Ainur in favor of an Abrahamic mythology, which was not the sole source for Tolkien's ideas. In fact, (and I will have to look), I believe there are contradicting letters that variously claim strict adherence to Christian myth (often to church officials), as well as explicitly not being allegorical. Like I said, I think the simplification is useful but only presents a part of the story. I'll add things if I can find them.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that anyone is actively advocating that Christianity is the driving force. I just think there is more to the story and that we are doing a disservice to the readers if we make the picture appear in this way. I haven't read every line of every article so I don't know how prevalent it is, so I really just wanted some feedback. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I can see there may be a general problem, but certainly "godlike" (with a small 'g') references Northern or Greek mythology rather more than it does Christianity, especially given that it refers to a group of deities not one alone. And how else would you describe them? Strictly speaking of course Tolkien did (or said he did) have Christianity in mind when writing the Lord of the Rings: "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision" (Letters 142), although obviously there's a ton of other stuff in there too. Regarding angels, the article says "somewhat like" not "they are", which actually softens what Tolkien wrote of Gandalf "I would venture to say that he was an incarnate angel" (my emphasis). It is what Tolkien wrote, but if another commentator takes another view we should include that too.
The Satan thing is just one of the comparisons I found for Saruman - I don't recall that I found any that referenced another belief system (possibly because Saruman is such a distinctively modern western European character). You'd probably find more non-Christian references for other characters such as Gandalf (Odin), or Frodo (Baldur or Fróði). Short of excising any Christian references - which would be perverse to say the least - and having another look for references from other cultures, I'm not what can be done about this. 4u1e (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should exclude christian refs, and I know tolkien said that. But he also said in a different letter (which I have to produce still, as I indicated), that it was explicitly not a Christian allegory, but that Christianity was one of many things he had in his cauldron. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I don't see an NPOV problem with that. The sources as they are seem well-balanced to me, reflecting just what part of Tolkien's work was either inspired by Christianity or has been compared to it. If any article said explicitely that Christian belief was THE driving force behind Tolkien's fiction, then I'd have a problem with it, but not with the present state of things. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"neo-language"

In Quenya:

And a similar passage in Sindarin; Black Speech also has a sentence about Salonian Neo-Black Speech. Is this terminology really "usual"? Is it necessary to sneer at such efforts, when no real alternative exists? Is such ad hoc creation different in kind from what Tolkien himself did? (I believe it's agreed that Tolkien himself could not have conversed in Elvish.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The tone could change, but there is an important point to convey: the corpus, vocabulary, and grammar that Tolkien left are so meager that any significant use of the languages necessarily involves some invention, and therefore goes beyond Tolkien. To do it well requires knowledge of linguistics and knowledge of Tolkien. Salo has both. -- Elphion (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Part of my objection is that it implies that a serious student of Tolklang would neither presume nor need to invent anything, which ain't true. —Tamfang (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the Sindarin passage:

Comments? —Tamfang (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, but leave out the part after the dash; most people don't have the ability to invent "much as" Tolkien did. -- Elphion (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You read more into the words "much as" than I do! I want to convey somehow that T's own language-making was also partly ad hoc; how would you word it? —Tamfang (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to word it at all. We already know Tolkien invented the languages, and he was quite methodical about it. "Arbitary invention" is not necessarily "ad hoc". You make it sound as though what most people do when they invent Elvish is comparable to Tolkien's careful (one might almost say compulsive) approach. -- Elphion (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There's an interesting point there though, isn't there? I've got the impresssion that Tolkien must have had two creative processes for language - pure creation of word tables from 'first principles' (a philologist's hobby) and then filling in the (considerable) gaps for any given piece of Elvish writing to achieve the required vocabulary. I would assume that the neo-languages are mainly achieved through the second process, in particular for the films, where specific dialogue was to be produced. And, as you say, without the same degree of expertise or obsession. 4u1e (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
And without the same freedom to violate precedent; Tolkien's work was (mostly) tentative for himself, but not for Salo. —Tamfang (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Laurifindil has restored some of his previous edits at Quenya and Sindarin without any further comments, including the first quote above. I've therefore invited him to join us in this discussion over here. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

One could wish that Laurifindil (whose native language is probably French, to judge by some characteristic misspellings) would at least refrain from restoring bad English. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, judging from the geolocation of the notorious IP on those articles he is in fact French. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph quoted above is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The suggestion that David Salo makes things up on the spur of the moment is a gross slur. Unfortunately there is a messy and personal division in the Tolkienian linguistic community about the use of non-Tolkienian material, and this phraseology is clearly not NPOV. It's fine to make a NPOV comment about the use of reconstructed or constructed Quenya. Salo's Quenya in the films is obviously not all Tolkien's. Nor was mine in the LotR musical. But all of it was constructed by plausible means from Tolkien's. Incidentally, Laurifindil is Édouard Kloczko, a well known and expert Tolkienian linguist, whose background is complex - he grew up in Soviet Bloc Ukraine, Latvia and Poland, and then moved to France. So he can be forgiven for his less than perfect written English! Nonetheless, if he persists in reverting corrections of his incorrect English, the matter should be treated as an edit war. JCBradfield (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting revelation, Mr. Bradfield. I have changed the relevant sections at Quenya and Sindarin to the version by Tamfang as discussed above. Let's hope the texts remain neutral now, otherwise I'm going to report this as an edit war. De728631 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See also recent history of Black Speech. —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rings of Power

Can one of you guys with better copy editing skills than myself please have a look a the Rings of Power article. It's beyond my powers to fix it. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a piece of work. It might be better to rewrite it completely with less in-universe details and perhaps some more focus on the concept and on adaptations. I've put in some references for a start but the text part needs some serious editing. De728631 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I took a swing at it. Perhaps tossed out too much, and it still needs some refs. -- Elphion (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice work, Elphion, the article look much better now. I've added the missing refs. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kings of Gondor

Out of curiosity, does every single King of Gondor actually need his own article? Some I'd understand -- Isildur, for example certainly merits his own article, as does Aragorn and maybe Eärnil II. But pretty much everyone else mentioned in the {{AnarionHeirs}} template seems to be small-time news. Wouldn't it make more sense just to merge them all into the King of Gondor article? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, do any of them give multiple out of universe sources supporting their notability? No, didn't think so. I completely agree that the majority should be merged into a Kings of Gondor article (I'm doubtful we need that either, but know that others would feel differently). We (or I) did something very similar to the Stewards of Gondor a couple of years back. 4u1e (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, we should merge them into List of Kings of Gondor. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I just came upon these accidentally today with exactly the same thought (that these articles don't pass WP:GNG, and thought I'd check in here to see if there was discussion. Does anyone have any rationale why we shouldn't just redirect the lot of them? Unless there's an objection, we don't even need to go through AfD's, as long as we just redirect them. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Aragorn has certainly been the subject of plenty of real world discussion, Elendil and Isildur may have enough. I doubt Earnil II, or any of the others, has. 4u1e (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I'm going to redirect all of them except for Aragorn, Isildur, and Eärnil II (unless I find one that has real world relevance w/references). It may take a bit; afterward, I'll update the list itself to get rid of the self-redirects. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I got all the double redirects. —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I forgot to go looking for those. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Eärnil II is not that much outstanding comparing to other rulers of Gondor to have his own article when no other king during the Third Age has one. There are some others with comparable notability, such as the Ship-Kings, Rómendacil II, Eldacar and Castamir, Ondoher... Or if they won't have whole articles, at least more information from the original articles should be incorporated into the Kings of Gondor. --Kakola6 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A small selection of articles for deletion/merger

user:Faolin42 just helpfully added a set of 'See Alsos' to Saruman. Having read them, I wonder whether we should really have articles on some of them at all:

  • Destruction of Isengard - this is purely detailed synopsis of the book. The only real-world titbits are the reference to Macbeth, which could usefully be added to a section on 'Concept and creation' in The Two Towers, and the mention that it appears in one of the films and in a song by a minor American band (The Fall of Troy), which I don't think need to be recorded at all. I suggest that the article could be deleted and redirected to Isengard.
  • War of the Ring - Entirely in-universe, describing the war as if it were a real-life campaign. Suggest that if there is anything relevant here that is not already in the relevant book articles it could be merged across and the article deleted and redirected to The Lord of the Rings.

What do others think? 4u1e (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge/delete them all, I say. Possibly transwiki to the Middle-earth wiki on Wikia. On the note of deletion/merging, I'm not really sure we should have an article on Ælfwine of England. Harry Blue5 (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)o
Real World notability? 4u1e (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
None of the articles pass WP:GNG, from what I can see. Most of the Middle-earth characters need some real-world information, really. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else, before I proceed with those two? 4u1e (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of Isengard has been redirected to Isengard, and its former content moved to lotr.wikia.com. Strikes me that there's probably a lot of stuff that could be moved over there... 4u1e (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Every page in Category:Middle-earth battles (apart from the redirects of course) seems to be a non-notable fictional event. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Not every page. E.g. Battle of the Pelennor Fields has in fact a number of secondary, reliable, real-world-related sources. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
My bad. But still, the point stands that most of the articles in the category need to be merged or have a cleanup of some sort. Harry Blue5 (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Cfd


Saruman → GA

And there was much rejoicing! Saruman has just been rated a Good Article. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

After two years and three nominations...phew! Thanks to all those who contributed, queried and challenged. 4u1e (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello to the members of this wikiproject. I notice that the articles for all three of the Peter Jackson films mention that the Bluray DVD release of the extended editions of the films are going to be released in conjunction with the theatrical release of the first Hobbit film. However, the announced release date of the DVDs is coming up on June 28th. Since the film is not hitting theaters until December you may wish to update this info. This is just a suggestion - if the consensus is that you are okay with the sections as is that is ok with me. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 16:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Turns out the TH release has now been moved to Dec 2012 so their is now no conjunction with the bluray release. I have updated the sections accordingly. MarnetteD | Talk 01:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed: Elf (Middle-earth)

There's a content dispute and semi-edit-war going on between two users with an increasing strength in tone. The debated facts include Tolkien's inspiration for his elves in terms of specifically Germanic and/or Celtic backgrounds, the etymology of "elf", etc. Please have a look at the talk page and help finding a consensus so the article is no longer a battlefield. De728631 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Middle-earth calendar

Someone prdded Middle-earth calendar for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I removed the prod, but I'd appreciate some help from you all to address the tagger's concerns. I'm currently busy with other wiki tasks. --Fang Aili talk 08:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added a few secondary sources and pointed at the one that was already given in the article. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Careful though - the article has almost no real world content (one mention of a possible inspiration for the calendar) and some of the secondary sources are themselves more or less in-universe (Encyclopedia of Arda). 4u1e (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
That's right, the real-world content is a bit limited but I've found more reliable real-world sources, e.g. Bradley E. Schaefer's article on the astronomy of Durin's Day. De728631 (talk)

Nomination of Elros for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elros 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/Elros 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 good 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. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Has been merged to Kings of Númenor. De728631 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Finwë for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finwë 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/Finwë 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 good 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. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The result was "no consensus". De728631 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"fictional language"

Laurifindil recently removed the term fictional language from Sindarin and Quenya, saying there's no such thing. One may wonder what that means. Trivially there's no such thing as a fictional anything: by definition it does not exist. Quenya and Sindarin certainly exist, so in one sense they are not fictional, but they are of fiction. What do you say? —Tamfang (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that there is a difference between an unarticulated fictional language like those mentioned in many fantasy and sci-fi works and the incomplete artificial languages Tolkien created. Although Sindarin isn't realised to anything approaching the level of a usable artificial language like Esperanto. A quick skim of 'A Secret Vice' suggests that Tolkien used 'invented languages' to describe this subject. 4u1e (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the introduction to Fictional language can shed some light on this:
"Fictional languages are by far the largest group of artistic languages. Fictional languages are intended to be the languages of a fictional world and are often designed with the intent of giving more depth and an appearance of plausibility to the fictional worlds with which they are associated, and to have their characters communicate in a fashion which is both alien and dislocated. Some of these languages, e.g., in worlds of fantasy fiction, alternative universes, Earth's future, or alternate history, are presented as distorted versions or dialects of modern English or other natural language, while others are independently designed conlangs."
So yes, fictional languages do exist as a subgroup of conlangs, i.e. they are constructed languages for use in a fictional universe (as opposed to the real-world Esperanto and others). So unless we delete the entire article on fictional languages, Quenya and Sindarin are fictional languages too. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
People even write books about fictional languages. De728631 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
One book at least. Seems a plausible definition for 'fictional language', and if it's in use out in the real world then there's no reason we shouldn't use it here. Perhaps Laurifindil is taking too narrow a view of the term. Is it used in any books about Tolkien? (I imagine it probably is.) 4u1e (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The book I mentioned above has entries on the languages of LotR and The Hobbit and frequently cites Tolkien in the preface. See the updated list in Fictional language. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I've now restored the links to Fictional language in Sindarin and Quenya referring to said source. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wagner v Tolkien

I note Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen#Richard_Wagner_and_J._R._R._Tolkien which does not belong there as it concerns LotR more than DRdN. Before I delete the section, could someone in this project indicate if there is adequate coverage of this topic within your articles or whether you want to use any of this?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a well-referenced paragraph Wagnerian influences of about the same size in J. R. R. Tolkien's influences so I think you can safely delete the text at DRdN. De728631 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ME battles

{{Infobox Me battle}} has been deleted per this deletion discussion. So apparently most articles in Category:Middle-earth battles have been affected by this decision in that there's now only a navbox left on top of the pages. We might want to clean that up and turn these header navboxes into full-width footer templates. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiHobbit

Someone seems to have created Wikipedia:WikiHobbit a while back and then forgot it. I just expanded the page but thought people here might be the most interested in adding to the page or possibly creating one of those userboxes. John Slocum (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion sorting page

I see that I set up the deletion sorting page for this WikiProject in 2009: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle-earth. It is transcluded at the top of this page. However, it hasn't been used much and is now up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle-earth. I'm not a regular member of this project so I'll leave it to other editors to defend that page if it's likely to be useful. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Past tense

Feezo has raised the concern that using past tense for articles related to Tolkien's legendarium is against consensus at Consensus at WAF and WikiProjects should not override general consensus. However I for one have not seen any notifier to the project that this has even been discussed.

So let's recall why WP:Middle-earth introduced this style in the first place. Please see this old discussion that quotes an old version of the project standard: "All articles that cover in-universe material must be in past tense, as decided as a consensus here. Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, Tolkien related articles are an exception, due to the fact that we are discussing more than just plots of novels, we are outlining the history of [what we now intepret as] a fictional world — the novels are written in past tense because they are memoirs meant to explain a mythical past of our Earth, much like the Greek Mythology. Also, take consideration into the fact that many of the information is taken not from the novels, but from informational texts (e.g. The History of Middle-earth)" and other arguments like "...When discussing the plot of a book, it is customary to use the present tense. However, when discussing history, albeit of a fictional world, it might make more sense to use the past tense. Here, it poses a problem, because the information comes from a book. In any case, the current mix makes for awkward reading." I suppose that is why the current project standards still write that "Tolkien-related articles are an exception, due to the fact that we are discussing more than just plots of novels, we are outlining the history of [what we now interpret as] a fictional world — the novels are written in past tense because they are memoirs meant to explain a mythical past of our Earth, much like the Greek Mythology."

So while this issue has repeatedly been discussed before on article level and also here on this talk page I don't see any reason to change our practice since we have a well-founded explanation for using past tense. While there may be consensus at WP:WAF this consensus has so far ignored any of our reasons for doing so. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This caveat is in the guidelines, and the middle-earth project does fit under it.

Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well.

"Chroniclers claimed that Thalestris, queen of the Amazons, seduced Alexander the Great."
Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what I just mentioned at the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Wikiproject with its own guidelines. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Article alerts

I have just deprodded three articles Gamling, Gildor Inglorion‎ and Mouth of Sauron that had been proposed for deletion for lack of real world notability and third-party references. While I think that first issue was actually a non-issue for all three articles with either notable adaptations or third-party references, it is those independent references that should be improved. Even better would be a third-party character analysis. De728631 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hekeldi

Hi, I'm from Wikipedia Italian. Sorry, I don't speak english very well. I'd want to ask you who are Hekeldi. You can find this world on this File:Sundering of the Elves.png. After that I'd want to ask you: There is the name "Iathrim" (with information about they) on the book called "The War of Jewels" near the page 378 I think? There isn't this book in italian. If you could answer there[1] you would be grateful. :-) --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Heceldi (or Hekeldi in old writing) is a term in Quenya that was especially used for those Eldar who were left behind or lost in Beleriand (in the "sundering" image compare the three branches that evolved out that group). And of them, the Iathrim (Sindarin: the people of the barrier) are Elu Thingol's people who lived behind the Girdle of Melian in the safety of Doriath. I can't help you with The War of Jewels but this information can be found in an Elvish/German dictionary I have: Pesch, Helmut W. (2003). Elbisch. Grammatik, Schrift und Wörterbuch der Elbensprache von J.R.R. Tolkien (in German). Bastei Lübbe. ISBN 3-404-20476-X. De728631 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. But I've got one more question, sorry. What is the difference between "Sindar" and "Heceldi"? After that the Wikipedia Italian's projet about Tokien can rest easy for now I think. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Hekeldi is just an earlier term that was already in use during the Great Wandering. "Sindar" as a collective term was later coined by the Sindar themselves when they had already split into several subgroups within Beleriand. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
So the only difference is that a word (Sindar) was coined after the other (Hekeldi)? The elves in this group are the same? --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they are basically the same elves. It should also be noted that Hekeldi seems only to appear in The War of the Jewels, not in the published Silmarillion. And I have to correct myself, the Sindar (Grey Elves) were named so by the Noldor when they returned to Beleriand after the destruction of the Two Trees, not by themselves, see [2]. So those are just two different names from different periods in time for the same group of elves. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!!!  :-) --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Character.

There's some inconsistency in the various characters under wp:me, some like Gandalf introduce like this,

Gandalf ( /ˈɡændɑːlf/) is a character in J. R. R. Tolkien's novels The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In these stories, Gandalf appears as a wizard, member and later the head (after Saruman's betrayal and fall) of the order known as the Istari, as well as leader of the Fellowship of the Ring and the army of the West. In The Lord of the Rings, he is initially known as Gandalf the Grey, but after returning from death as Gandalf the White.

. Whereas some like Frodo are introduced like this

Frodo Baggins is a fictional character in J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. He is the main protagonist of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. He was a hobbit of the Shire who inherited Sauron's Ring from Bilbo Baggins and undertook the quest to destroy it in the fires of Mount Doom. He is also mentioned in the posthumously published The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.

. I think we should come up with a consensus on whether to include the word 'fictional' in the opening sentance, and if we should introduce the IPA GimliDotNet (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As to the IPA I think it's pretty simple, use the pronunciation rules from the Appendix to LotR but only add IPA where the pronunciation differs from English. I.e. most Elvish names would need an explanation. "Fictional character" may look like a double wording, but I think we should stress out that those are in fact works of fiction as opposed to, say, biographical novel where the main character may have lived in reality. Therefore I suggest we always use "fictional character" in the lead. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

At the risk of controversy... I'm pretty certain that this project generally goes against what Wikipedia is not? Specifically, the first example given:

"Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents."

It strikes me that this project is really just an attempt at amassing as much information as possible about the Lord of the Rings 'legendarium'. I really don't see, for instance, why it is necessary to have an entire article on the warning beacons of Gondor or indeed Gondor itself. While both of them are verifiable and possibly vaguely notable, I hardly think that this is the case to the extent that either need coverage in their own articles. If we are to accept for a moment that these articles do deserve to exist, then according to the above quotation they ought to include 'concise summary' of plot with a far greater emphasis on 'discussing the reception and significance' of the subject matter. Instead, we find an absurd amount of time spent discussing the nuances of the various hills on which these beacons are placed (there was far more before I deleted that particular passage), a description of the various landmarks one might find on these hills, the years in which they were established, the distance they cover - and then, at last, one single mention of the wider reception of the beacons in the form of a fairly un-notable Family Guy reference. Really?

I think that this entire project is a classic example of the problems of systemic bias. There should be a single article on each volume/book and perhaps articles for each of the films. Apart from that this entire project deserves to go on a separate Lord of the Rings Wiki.--80.2.95.0 (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The excessive information you have deleted was only added on the 24th December by an anon-user with very few edits. If you feel strongly about this I suggest you WP:PROD any articles you think are excessive. Just remember that works discussed in 3rd party sources do qualify under notability rules. A hell of a lot of the articles do need cleaning up though I agree, far too much information and fan-cruft. Dol Guldor is one of the worst articles in the project scope for it. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
(This is the original anon) I merged the article in question. I am probably going to go on a PROD spree at some point and just 'be bold' about it all but I don't have the energy for it right now. --Bajazeth. And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 17:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That's cool. Welcome to the project by the way :) GimliDotNet (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive16&oldid=1232698319"