Talk:The Hobbit (film series)

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 8, 2005	Articles for deletion	Deleted
May 1, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed

New Zealand Unassessed Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: New Zealand / American C‑class

	Film portal 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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Middle-earth B‑class 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

New title?

Doesn't having a slash in an article title cause problems? What about The Hobbit (2012–13 film)? Or (2010s film)?
—WWoods (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is covering both films, and the 'slash' wouldn't cause any problems, when people search for the film they should know by now its in two-parts. The slash and the dash would have the exact same effect. The '2012' is about Part 1, and the '/13' is about the second part. It's not saying "the film is undecided to be released in 2012 or 2013", it would say the film if it was "2012-13", like it's undecided whether it would be released in 2012 or 2013, even if people do think that then once they start to read the article they will easily catch on. Its better than "The Hobbit (2012 film)", as that title would only be relevant to the first film. Charlr6 (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I meant. Human readers can understand "2012/13", but computers may parse "The Hobbit (2012/13 film)" as a subpage of "The Hobbit (2012", the way "Talk:Foo/Archive 1" is a subpage of "Talk:Foo". I remember some discussion of what to do about ships with names like "M/V Jones"; I can't find it, but the result was that all such articles are named "MV Jones".

According to Wikipedia:Subpages#Articles do not have sub-pages (main namespace), this is not a problem for the article itself, but may be for the talk page:

The main (article) namespace does not have this feature turned on, as strictly hierarchical organisation of articles is discouraged, and other distinctions are better made by placing pages in other namespaces (e.g. discussions go in "Talk:", and templates in "Template:").
Slashes in article titles
Some topics have a slash in the name, and should be named accordingly—e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy or OS/2. Care should be taken with the corresponding talk pages, though, as subpages are enabled in talk space—for example, Talk:OS/2 is treated by the software as a subpage of Talk:OS.

—WWoods (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then if computers would do that, then maybe there is someone who can edit slight details and it won't think it's a sub-page. But if it's only the computers that might be confused then there should be a way to slightly edit something so they would understand. But as Humans would understand, then there isn't really a main problem. Charlr6 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very bold move that was done without any kind of discussion or consensus. It should be changed back immediately. I would do it myself, but there seems to be some sort of conflict preventing me from doing it. TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well whoever agreed for it to be called just "The Hobbit (2012 film)", even though it's split into two parts being released in 2012 and 2013. Someone wasn't very bold on letting that happen. "The Hobbit (2012/13 film)" is much more suitable that "The Hobbit (2012)" which implies it is being released in 2012 as one film. I tried to do it as "The Hobbit (2012/13 films)" with an 's' at the end but it automatically got rid of it. If you want to risk people getting confused by the title then so be it, but Part 1 is released in 2012, and Part 2 in 2013. Until later this year when they is enough information on both films then we can create pages for both of them and delete this page or just make it very basic and literally link it to the two other pages for the films.

And so much for 'without any kind of discussion or consensus' and you are trying to change it back immediately without any 'discussion or consensus'. You should wait until at least 4-6 posters come on here and decide what should happen and whether "The Hobbit (2012)" or "The Hobbit (2012/13)" is more suitable and which one could be less confusing. People by now know its split into two parts, and would think that it both might be released in 2012 if we have it in the title, but the "2012/13" helps people to understand better. Charlr6 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make moves like this without first getting consensus from other editors. Don't just take it upon yourself to make page title moves like this. If you'd bothered to read the rest of the talk page, you would see that this topic has been brought up multiple times, including this time.TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you won't need to change it back anytime soon until more people come onto it complaining at the move. But that still doesn't explain who changed it to "The Hobbit (2012 film)", even though that implies one film even though its two parts released within one year of each other. It's not my fault someone stupidly changed it to "The Hobbit (2012 film)", the new current one is more suitable and accept as they are being released in 2012 and 2013. So the discussions must not have been good enough for whatever group of editors happily let it be moved to "The Hobbit (2012 film)". Maybe THEY should have bothered to remember that it's a two-part film being released within one year of each other and that "2012 film" would and should only apply to "An Unexpected Journey". Charlr6 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this works.TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this as well. And the move occurred during the middle of a discussion on what to rename the page! This was not one of the proposed changes. Lost on Belmont (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three things need to be cleared up just in case this kind of conversation gets a little out of hand. 1: It's always safer to do a consensus on the name change first. I didn't have a problem with your name change of the title and obviously a lot didn't because there was no revert but a consensus would have been gone a lot smoother 2: It's been a while so I can't remember but the reveal that the film(s) was a two-parter being released in two different years was probably not revealed when it was first filmed or when the consensus was to change. I know it was not a sudden reveal when it was actually filmed and if so that was why it was just (2012 film) at the time. 3: We shouldn't need to worry because we still got a active requested move going on that will be open to many suggestions including yours on what to name it. Remember there is no rush. I hope I cleared some things up. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If 'duology' was a proper word I would suggest that to be in the brackets. I would suggest 'film series' but as it's only two films it doesn't fully feel like it can be called that. Charlr6 (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to keep having this discussion? Consensus was that it should have been where it was - see the numerous discussions above. This should not have been moved without prior discussion, and there are ongoing discussions on how to structure the articles for the whole series. And again - duology is not a word, so this should never be considered. "Film series" is infinitely preferable as per WP:NCF, but it is rare that a film series article exists when it consists only two films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should keep on being discussed until the films are out so then individual pages can be created for both films. I looked through the page and didn't see anyone at all mention the page being moved to "The Hobbit (2012 film)", which was a stupid change as it's two-parts being released within a year of each other, you can't change that fact in the title. The unofficial word 'duology' would be more suitable than "The Hobbit (2012 film)".

And why did you say "duology is not a word" like I didn't understand it wasn't a word. I said "If 'duology' WAS a proper word then I would suggest that to be in the brackets". Didn't you see the 'was'? I know its not a proper word and I was saying that if it was then it would be the suitable word to use, but I said that it wasn't. I never said it was an official real word. I NEVER said it should be considered, I said that if it WAS a real word. So much for you telling me to see discussions above, why don't you read what I said properly? Charlr6 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Requested move I above. Please also see Requested move II and Requested move III for oppositions to moving away from this. Despite you agreeing that "duology " isn't a word, still you're suggesting "duology" is more appropriate then "2012 film". It isn't. Because it isn't a word. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking way too much into what I said. I did suggest it would be more appropriate but only if it was actually a word. If you aren't happy with the word then the definition of the unofficial word would be more suitable as 'duology' WOULD mean a two-film series IF it WAS REAL. That's all that I was saying. And before you come back and look WAY too deeply again, I'll repeat myself. We know what the definition of 'duology' would be IF it WAS a REAL word. It WOULD mean a series of two films. IF 'duology' WAS a REAL word, then the DEFINITION WOULD be 'a series of two films'. Might as well not add my opinion in as apparently because duology isn't a real word, my opinion would be invalid because of it not being a word, even though I was trying to show an example. I know what I was trying to say, don't change my words around. And the links you sent me went to discussions above where you started saying that 'duology' wasn't a word. Practically like you are throwing all of your opinions at me like fact. "See the above discussion I had when I talked about this earlier and how it isn't a word because I was the first on the discussion to say so". That's practically what you were saying. Charlr6 (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I don't see the point of arguing for the hypothetical use of a neologism that you think would be a good fit if the word did exist. It's muddying the issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't muddying anything, stop changing my words around and thinking I'm doing the complete opposite of what I am doing. Charlr6 (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument (and I paraphrase) "I wish we could use duology but we can't", and the lengthy response detracts from the point and is completely superfluous to the issue at hand. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I wish we could use duology but we can't" isn't written anywhere on this page. What I said was "If 'duology' was a proper word I would suggest that to be in the brackets. I would suggest 'film series' but as it's only two films it doesn't fully feel like it can be called that.", I never said "I wish we could use duology but we can't." It's not even written anywhere on the page except where you said it. Charlr6 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what "paraphrase" means. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that practically confirms you were changing my words around. Charlr6 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds no lack of prior usage of 'duology', and for anyone unfamiliar with the word, meaning should be obvious from related words like trilogy, tetralogy, duopoly, etc.

—WWoods (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the word duology (oops, I mean 'unofficial' word before I get told off, oops I said word again. Might as well just beep out the word.) I knew what I meant, because it does sound similar to trilogy, tetralogy, duopoly, etc. So I knew it was something to do with film series, and as 'duo' means 'two' I could see that it means two films or two books or two games. If someone came up with the idea for the word, (and it is a word as we know how to spell it, what it means. It actually being unofficial and not in the dictionary doesn't make it not a word. There can be unofficial words. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about it). The new Coldplay album which title I can't remember. That actually isn't a word, they just made it up. So then maybe whoever doesn't agree 'duology' isn't a word should go over to that page and get rid of the title as it isn't a word and won't be in the dictionary. But as it's an album by a famous band, how does that make it a more acceptable word that 'duology'. And don't anyone come back saying how I'm moving away from the discussion, sometimes you've got to make examples to make people understand and to do that you occasionally have to go off topic. Charlr6 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page back to its original title. There was no consensus for this move so it has been moved back as per policy regarding controversial page moves. The Hobbit (2012/13 film) film goes against film article naming conventions for a start. When disambiguation using years, the convention is to use the debut year. The only two valid disambiguation terms here are (2012 film) and (film series), unless a non-ambiguous title is chosen. It's probably wise not to move it again though until a final title is chosen though, because it could create a double redirect problem if it is moved more than once. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is supposed to show the debut year then "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" page should actually be called "The Lord of the Rings (2001)", unless there is some major contradictions around. The 'trilogy' started in 2001, the origin for that film series. Or how about if the Lord of the Rings films and The Hobbit merge into one article entitled "The Lord of the Rings (movie franchise)"? The Hobbit is a prequel to Lord of the Rings (even though the book was written first), not a spin-off like Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It's a prequel so it should be in a main over-all page shouldn't it? Covering all of the five films made by Peter Jackson. Charlr6 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation year is only required when other articles with the same title exist. See WP:NCF. As far as your "movie franchise" article goes, please see Middle-earth in film. This has all been discussed previously above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a "movie franchise" for the Peter Jackson film, once again you think the opposite of what I'm saying. And stop saying 'this has all been discussed before', yes it has, but I'm talking about it now and asking questions and we are having another discussion. You must have gotten annoyed when there was a "Request Move II" and "Request Move III" and "Request Move IV", you might as well have said there "it's been discussed before in "Request I"". But the "Middle-earth in film" is about every single piece of film for Lord of the Rings, its practically anything about any official movie or fan film for Lord of the Rings. I was on about one specifically for the Peter Jackson series, and I think you knew that. If you are getting fed up of saying "this has been discussed before", then stop coming back to discuss if it annoys you. I'm allowed to be part of the discussion, I'm so sorry that I wasn't here when the other discussions were taking place. Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "annoyed" about anything, but if you are going to open up issues that have already been discussed, then it might be beneficial to read them first, and mention what you agree or disagree with from previous editors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there was more than one Lord of the Rings trilogy, then it would be disambiguated as The Lord of the Rings (2001 film series). Technically an article about two films such as this would be called The Hobbit (film series); however, the argument against moving it to that name is that this article will mostly develop as an article about the 2012 film, since upon its release a plot, a release and reception section will be added. There may be some production content and speculation about the second film, but about 90% of the article will be about the first film. A vast majority of the links to the article will be linking to it as the article about the first film. Once there is enough content about the second film to sustain an article then that can be split out of this article into its own article, leaving this article entirely about the first film. The other approach, which is more complicated in my view, would be to move to something like The Hobbit (film series) or Production of The Hobbit, develop that, and then create a new article to cover the release of the first film. That is an entirely legitimate approach—and sounds more logical—but in practice it may be more complicated: most of the links to it will really be links to the first film, so those would all have to be manually corrected if a new article is created; also, cutting the part 1 content out of the film series article would be a much bigger job than cutting the part 2 content out of the part 1 article, sinc ethere will be more of it, and approaches that minimise cut and paste moves are usually preferred. Either approach is legitimate and in keeping with naming conventions, but moving it to an article disambiguated as "2012/13 film" isn't the correct approach, because which ever approach we take we are never going to end up with an article called The Hobbit (2012/13 film) so it's a short term measure. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that most of the material in this article as it stands now pertains to both the 2012 film and the 2013 film jointly - the premise, the pre-production, everything with Del Toro, even some of the filming/marketing/etc. as well as the cast (although the latter can be split up appropriately when the time comes). So either lots of this information is going to have to be copied to both the 2012 film article and the 2013 film article, or we will need something like The Hobbit (film series) or Production of The Hobbit, which this article actually is, since very little is specific to the 2012 film alone. Rlendog (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It pertains to both films presently because at the moment it only covers production content. But if this article continues to be developed as just one article then once the first film comes out you've got a plot, box office date and critical reception so it will be heavily weighted towards the first film. Either way, whether you develop it as an umbrella film series article or as single film article with a view of splitting out the part 2 content, the disambiguation terms are still "film series" or "2012 film" according to NCF, not "2012/13 film". Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, except that even if this article develops as the 2012 film article, all the information in the current article about the pre-production and much of the production will still apply equally to the 2013 film, and so it will still need to be copied into that film's article once there is enough information to develop that one. The only way to avoid that massive duplication would be to have an umbrella article - which right now this article basically is. So it might as well be given a title that reflects that. As far as I am concerned film series is fine. As is duology, for that matter. Or 2012/13. Or another title that adequately reflects the fact that the content covers two related films and not just a single one. After all, if film series is unacceptable for whatever reason (since there is no valid definition of a series that excludes groups of 2 elements) then we still need to remember that even though WP:NCF is a guideline, guidelines "are best treated with common sense" and "occasional exceptions may apply" without a need to rewrite the guideline itself. Rlendog (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions are for cases when the guidelines aren't applicable, but there is no reason to dream up new disambiguation terms when the NCF can easily accommodate it with existing and technically correct terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TheLastAmigo that the move to The Hobbit (2012/13 film) was a controversial move and needed consensus first because it was likely to be contested per WP:RM. However I didn't say anything because I thought it was decent compromise between The Hobbit (2012 film) and The Hobbit (film series), although I prefer The Hobbit (2012 film) over The Hobbit (film series) (see above discussion). Besides any move would likely be only temporary because the article is likely to be split between The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again once there are enough specific reliable sources available to each individual part.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the most likely outcome, then it is best to keep it as it is. Once the time comes for splitting, the part 2 stuff can be split into a new article, and this article can be simply moved to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. That way we only need to do copy attribution for the part 2 article, and the links will automatically redirect to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey without any broken double redirects. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then call the Lord of the Rings trilogy page, "Lord of the Rings (film trilogy)", but an article on the 2012 film should be a new page called "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey", and the same would go for Part 2. This is the over-all page for both films. If it's just going to be for the first film, then move all of the details for Part 2 to a section near the bottom of the page about Part 2, and then when there is more information, create a new page for that and then delete it from this page. And also if it's for the first film, then get rid of "upcoming two-part epic fantasy film" and change it to "upcoming epic fantasy film in a two-part series" or something similar and also get rid of the release date on the info box for the second film. If like you said, this page is more about Part 1 than Part 2, then don't design it to look like an overall page for both films. Maybe if anything, split the page instead of having information merged together, split it similar to what the Kill Bill page used to be like, when the top half was about Volume 1 and the bottom half was about Volume 2, then THAT would be more acceptable. Even if the info on Part 2 is about which actors will be in the second film, continuing from the first and some plans for where the second part will be picked up. And I repeat, like you said the article is more about Part 1, if it's more about Part 1, then treat the article like it is Part 1 instead of a page for BOTH films. Split it down, because it's kind of confusing with it seemingly being about both films, but mostly about Part 1. As like you said there was very little info on Part 2, then just move that down to a different section lower on the page. And actually we would end up with an article called "The Hobbit (2012/13)" when both films are out as that would be more suitable for a article focusing on both films. Duology isn't an official word and film series seems to great a value to call a two-part series. But because The Hobbit is split into two films, the "2012" would only be necessary if it was actually one film, not two parts. There was an animated film of The Hobbit I believe, but that was one part so it should contain the year it is released. But as this is a two-part project, it should contain both years. If Part 2 was a typical sequel then it would be understandable, but it's Part 2 and the second half of the story. "The Hobbit (2012/13)" title would refer to the two films as a whole, and then the 2012 information about be about Part 1, and the /13 information would be about Part 2. Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three choices as I see it:

Movie the article to The Hobbit (film series) or Production of The Hobbit, and formally develop the article about two films. This seems logical, but will lead to more work once you have to split out the film articles, with two lots of copy attribution, and two lots of wikilinks to correct.
Split the articles now into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again and develop them independently. The problem here though is that most of the production information is relevant to both films, and there might not be enough information to develop the articles independently i.e. they might just look like duplicates of each other, and you risk an afd.
Leave as it is, and once the article forms into enough content for two distinct articles then split the part 2 content into The Hobbit: There and Back Again, and move this article to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Leaving this article as The Hobbit (2012 film) isn't a big problem, because the title of the article isn't The Hobbit (2012 film), it is The Hobbit and the disambiguation term is just a qualifier to identify to readers which version the article is about.

These are the only three viable approaches that I can see. It's down to consensus which one is pursued, but the important thing is that is is a communal decision, and not just one editor forcing the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the many previous conversations and discussions, I assumed implied consensus to go along with option 3 until such time we needed to split into two (or, if necessary, three) separate articles. It seems that a new editor has joined the party late, and opened up the issue again without reading what has gone before (not to mention moving without consensus whilst a move discussion was still taking place). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happened with Harry Potter, and then as the part 2 release date approached it became very obvious that the part 2 content had to split into its own article; the solution presented itself because the article started to look like two articles jammed together. It was ultimately a natural process. Personally I think that is the best approach here, but ultimately it is up to the regular editors how they develop the article, provided they observe the NCF. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't have any problem with the split being done already. There is no guideline saying when we have to do it. Reading through WP:Split I don't see any reason why not. Sure Harry Potter was split after the first film was out but that's just because a consensus was done at that time. And also let's face it that there is another inaccuracy with the page title that it uses "film" instead of "films". It's obvious that a two parter is two films. With the Twilight title we never had to worry about that but I am pretty sure that we should all be in agreement that it is two films. Also I need to put this out of the way, film series articles talking about two films are not rare anymore (definitely in animated films). Check Cars (franchise), Kung Fu Panda (franchise), Madagascar (franchise)(not counting that there is going to be a film this year) and Fantastic Four in film. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "obvious that a two parter is two films", there is an argument that it could be perceived as one film in two parts, like Kill Bill, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, or Ivan the Terrible (film) (which had its "part two" released 14 years after "part one"). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Che (film)

, would be another example.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious that the film is in two parts any more. But actually, those films you mentioned, if people know about them and when I say that I mean KNOW, not 'heard of', then they would know it's in two parts.

The problem isn't that there is a policy saying we can't have two film articles now (the film notability guidelines say we can create film articles once filming has commenced, so in theory we are allowed to create an article for each film), it's more the case of what they cover. If the article is split, how exactly would it be split? What would go into the part 1 article and what would go into the part 2 article? It's not the legitimacy of a split that's the problem, it's the practical side of what would be split. This article primarily covers the production of both films, so I don't really see how that can be divided up between two articles. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. However we could have a sub-article for the production, but then we would also need a sub-article for the cast (sources dont identify which part they would involved or both), and there is no information where the plot is to be split. So the articles would be pretty bare bones. Its better that we keep them together for the time being.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really see how they did it? They managed it with Kill Bill before the films were split on Wikipedia onto two articles, before it was one article on each with the first volume at the top and second volume at the bottom of the page. That was done well. So maybe go onto the history on that page and look at how they did it before it was split. Charlr6 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the history of the Kill Bill article, there was a bit of sarcasm in my post. The point is we should wait and allow the article to develop together then split it after more specifics of each part are made available.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seeme to recall Kill Bill was split because it was badly done. It even had two infoboxes, it looked like two articles pushed together. Anyway, no-one actually seems to be arguing for splitting, there just seems to be some discontent over the disambiguation term. Under the current naming conventions, there are only two valid types (2012 film)/(film series), so if there really is a genuine feeling that these are not adequate then the appropriate course of action would be to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film series would be fine. I never heard of a requirement that a series must have more than 2 elements. Even Wikipedia's own article on film series contains a link to List of film series with two entries. Rlendog (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're right it's not obvious it's debatable. And obviously we have article titles to put prose that maybe using (film) in a two parter is acceptable. The opinions of the creators probably matter because it is so debatable. In my opinion a two parter is two films that most likely share the same production. Also I know dividing the article is not easy. Trust me I am the one who started at divided the Harry Potter article and I am the one who came up with the idea of dividing the production section. At the end it really took good editors to make it all work out. On other note I think the article looks fine to stay even though the title of it is not accurate. But it's obvious that it's going to be really big eventually. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am of the opinion that it's probably about time that we at least started discussing splitting the article again. It has already gotten extremely huge, the marketing for An Unexpected Journey is starting to get in full-swing, and we now have pretty good evidence that the first film will split with "Barrel out of Bonds". Also, production on both films has officially ended as of last week. There is probably enough material on the production in various places around the Internet that we could write a pretty detailed "Production" section, or even an entirely separate article on the production of the films. Thoughts?TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing my two cents in for the article name (if this article continues to be about both films). I had three suggestions being, The Hobbit (2012 and 2013 films), The Hobbit (Part 1 and Part 2), or The Hobbit (Peter Jackson films). JDC808 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple really, originally The Hobbit (book) was going to be made into two separate films, with some material added, now it is one film split into two halves. As such, it should really be one film with it's first date of release as its year. They filmed it and started finalising the first half for release while the second half was still being filmed (last shots only a few weeks ago). Lets not get each others knickers in a twist over something so simple ppl, there are more serious issues to deal with here and lots of work to do still :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budget.

$150 million. Hohoho thats moved from $500 for both parts. This seems fishy. Anyone fixes it? Deadagain33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

We don't know the budget. People need to stop putting speculative bollocks in. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a crystal ball or gossip column in a low rent newspaper. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirects?

An Unexpected Journey should redirect here, shouldn't it? We have a dismabiguation page for There and Back Again (disambiguation)... so that's a search term that's plausible, but so is the first undertitle. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Elvenking

I've seen it asserted repeatedly, as here, that Thranduil is the Elvenking of the Hobbit; but as far as I'm aware, that's not asserted anwhere in Tolkien. We know that Thranduil is King at the time of the Council of Elrond; but how do we know that the King of The Hobbit hasn't been killed off, or gone over the Sea? Thranduil could be his son, or even grandson. I see nothing in the Thranduil entry. Or have I missed something? Paul Magnussen (talk)

It's stated in Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age that Thranduil was king when Sauron came to Mirkwood; this was close to two thousand years earlier than The Hobbit. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Since it appears that both films will be represented on the page, it seems to be misleading to title the page The Hobbit (2012 film) since the second part will be released in 2013. I think it should be moved to either The Hobbit (2012 and 2013 films), The Hobbit (Part 1 and Part 2), or The Hobbit (Peter Jackson films). If a second article is made for Part 2, then this page should be named with its subtitle, and the same for Part 2. JDC808 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lengthy discussion on this above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol woops JDC808 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

There seem to be quite a few quotes that need correcting (done a few already)

Quotes should be as they were in the sources, with [additions] for explanation or missing words, and [sic] (He took {{sic|the|re}} money) used for misspelled words.

While I appreciate there are attempts to try and better the spelling, it is imperative that phrases are left as is. If this article ever goes to GA or FA, Wikilinks in quotes are also suspect and would be better removed - in other words try and avoid them if possible. Use a second mention of the linkable word that is not in the quote, for example. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New page title as its now been confirmed as three films?

As it has been confirmed, and already established on this page, that "The Hobbit" will become three films, thus, a trilogy. Should we change the title of the page to; "The Hobbit (film trilogy)" or "The Hobbit (film series)", because now it should have the same treatment as any other film trilogy should have in its name for the 'over-all' page.

What do you think? We could change it, like "The Lord of the Rings" film page to, "The Hobbit film trilogy". Charlr6 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with that, also hopefully it might help to curb over zealous editors from creating the individual film articles prematurely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote yes. The current title sounds like it describes a single film. As more information surfaces about each individual film (and as they are released), we can add links to separate film articles. This should become the trilogy page. --MattMauler (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Now that it is three films, the complaints about using terms like "duology" or "film series" are no longer issues. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone attempted and failed the page-move. We'll have to wait until the copy is speedy-deleted. --MattMauler (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that "Jackson confirmed plans to make a third film" is a sufficiently good reason to believe that this will definitely be done. I view changing this title as premature. Anyway, I have deleted the cut&paste at The Hobbit film trilogy, so any editor can move it there if they have sufficient reason to do so. —Kusma (t·c) 17:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest waiting to develop a consensus before attempting another move. Meph^talk 17:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

On his actual Facebook page, which Peter Jackson runs, he does say "... on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.". I know it's his Facebook page, and according to Wikipedia it can't really be a reliable source, but because it actually COMES from him, himself, it should be an exception, if I mean it would be included as a actual 'original source'. Peter Jackson's Facebook page Charlr6 (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film series in no longer a two part movie therefore the title shouldn't only refer to the first premiere year. I think moving this page to The Hobbit film series would be appropriate and maybe later to The Hobbit film trilogy if the media and film studios styles it that way. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support a change in name to The Hobbit film series, as per WP:NCF. -- User:2nyte 2:14, 31 July 2011 (AEST)

Support move to The Hobbit (film series) (with correct disambiguator per WP:NCF) in light of the fact that this is now three films. Personally I prefer the use of "series" over "trilogy" in most cases, as the fact that is three films does not necessarily make it a "trilogy". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to The Hobbit (film series). I would say we could move it to "The Hobbit film trilogy", like the Lord of the Rings page has, but I also prefer the use of 'series'. Charlr6 (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move to The Hobbit (film series). Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy. Three films in a series is a trilogy, so why not. It also limits the scope of the article to just these three films. If more films are added we discuss renaming it then, but I see that as highly unlikely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, three films in a series is not necessarily a trilogy. It could just be a series of three. A "trilogy" implies a greater artistic/thematic connection between the three films, and also a pre-meditated master plan. I'm not saying that this isn't the case here, but it's something to bear in mind. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also per WP:COMMONNAME, an unscientific google search show more hits for "The Hobbit trilogy" than "The Hobbit series".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems a problem with genre fiction, etc., where everything needs to have a label, and I guess the news reports are following suit. "Quadrilogy" anyone? WP:NCF seems to advocate that "film trilogy" is only occasionally used, and I don't see a reason to go along with it in this instance. There are very few film series articles left with "film trilogy" in the title these days, with "trilogy" being used for more thematic trilogies like BRD Trilogy and The Three Colours Trilogy, and most film series are disambiguated by "(film series)". In fact, The Lord of the Rings film trilogy may be the only one left that isn't, and I can see a special case in that instance. I don't think so here though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. Trilogy does not appear very often. More often 'series' or 'franchise' (the latter would not work in this case). Just to be clear, though, WP:NCF does allow for the use of "Series name trilogy" if the label has 'often' been used by outside sources. --MattMauler (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, but seeing as this is breaking news, has there been time for it to "often" be called a "trilogy"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd Support a move to The Hobbit film trilogy; the current name is now irrelevant to the page and what is agreed is that we all want a change in name, whether it be The Hobbit film series or The Hobbit film trilogy. -- User:2nyte 9:41, 31 July 2011 (AEST)

Support move to either one of the two names proposed. The current title is misleading.
Either option would be suitable, but if given the choice, I'd go with The Hobbit film trilogy. While Jackson himself has not yet used "trilogy" to my knowledge, the majority of secondary sources already refer to the series as a 'trilogy.' That doesn't mean it should definitely be called a trilogy, but we would certainly have sufficient basis for labeling it as such. --MattMauler (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy, there are many parallels with this and the LOTR film trilogy, ie. it was all filmed at once, and though it was never envisioned as 3 films, its being expanded into such. I don't like the use of "The Hobbit is a 3-part film" (or 2-part when it was), because the Lord of the Rings could be considered a 3-part film. The Windler talk 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You see, I only think that something is a bona fide "trilogy" if it was conceived as such. This was filmed as two films (or a two-part film), and the third is an afterthought. The non-controversial approach would be "film series", as whilst it may or may not constitute a "trilogy", it is definitely a "series". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the non-controversial approach.
I would support whichever name on which we can reach a consensus; I suggest operating thus until one of the two appellations clearly predominates in other media. Whichever name we choose, I think we should keep an eye on what Peter Jackson calls it in the future as well as its characterization by firmly established secondary sources. At this early stage, we have little to go on, but as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCF, we should be attentive to how the films are popularly known. --MattMauler (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy. How is this even a debate? A trilogy is, by definition, a series of 3 films, books, etc. whether it was envisioned that way or not. Wikipedia's own definition of trilogy is "a set of three works of art that are connected, and that can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works." This certainly fits the definition of a trilogy by Wikipedia's own standards. If there were the possibility of more than 3 films, then fine, but there aren't going to be more than 3 so it is a trilogy. You can rest assured that Warner Bros. is going to market and release the box set under the moniker of "The Hobbit trilogy". Also, it would just feel weird if it was called anything but The Hobbit film trilogy. Don't you think that being uncomfortable calling it a trilogy is getting just a little too technical? Nobody is going to be confused if we were to call this page "The Hobbit film trilogy". Furthermore, I'm quite perplexed that we're even having this debate. After all these months of debating what the title of this page should be, the perfect solution just falls into our lap and we still can't agree on what to call it, lol.TheLastAmigo (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, a series of three films, books, etc., are not automatically a trilogy. You are incorrect with your "definition" of "trilogy". That's a series of three. A trilogy is more than just a series of three, and as you're quoting the Wikipedia definition, it remains to be seen whether these three films can be "seen as a single work". It seems these days anything is marketed as a "trilogy", or "quadrilogy" [sic], or even "pentology" [sic]. And incidentally, a week or so ago, we'd have said that there was no possibility of a third film. Anyway, as I mentioned above, there is some controversy as to whether this will constitute a "trilogy", but it is incontrovertible as to whether or not it forms a series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then what would you consider a trilogy? 'A series of three interconnected works' seems like a fitting definition to me. Cktt13 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more tricky than that simple definition. The Beverly Hills Cop films are "a series of three interconnected works" and have been called a "trilogy" for marketing purposes, but they are not a bona fide "trilogy". Obviously that's an extreme example and there is more to be considered in this instance, but still we should go for the non-controversial option and disambiguate with "(film series)". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not what we call a trilogy but what others call a trilogy. If there are reliable sources that label it a trilogy then I have no problem labeling it as one as well. Which The Hollywood Reporter and Variety do.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the opposition to "film series". It's unambiguous and non-controversial. These three films will, without a doubt form a film series. They may or may not form a trilogy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as reliable sources go, we should consider that the film has been referred to being a trilogy "often", and in a critical analysis rather than just in news reports and for marketing purposes before we can call it one. Only then will we meet the guideline at WP:NCF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline states "When trilogies are often referred to as such by outside sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy." It does not differentiate between what kind of sources, and both THR and Variety are highly reputable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we've had 24 hours since the third film was confirmed, it's a little soon to have been "often". And yeah, maybe that guideline does need tightening up a bit. To me, it implies its use should be for conceptual trilogies that have been discussed as trilogies critically (Three Colours, BRD, etc) or have been conceived as a trilogy from the outset as The Lord of the Rings was. For me, The Godfather (for example) fails the second criteria, but passes the first. With The Hobbit, I think it's at best borderline right now, and as someone quite sensibly suggests above, we should move it to "(film series)" until its "trilogy" status can be verified. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that this is going to be one continuous story split into 3 parts, it's pretty much a trilogy in my book. I mean, by your definition, the original Star Wars trilogy wouldn't be a bona fide trilogy since it was not originally envisioned that way.TheLastAmigo (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Star Wars isn't a trilogy in the true sense of the word (just like The Godfather in my example above), but as it has been discussed as a trilogy critically and at great length over time, then it is accepted as such. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy, with The Hobbit (film series) an acceptable 2nd choice. Reliable sources are calling it a trilogy, and even if we go to first principles and apply some OR it is pretty obvious that the 3 films will have to form a single work in at least some sense, given that they were shot together with the same cast and crew based primarily on the same book. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for The Hobbit (film series). It's not a trilogy really, three independent works bound together by a larger arc, it's one film split into separate parts because heaven forbid you make a really long movie. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for The Hobbit (film series) per the disambiguation guideline. I also agree that it is not a trilogy, even if released in three parts. The Hobbit like The Lord of the Rings is one single novel. But for editorial reasons the latter book was originally published in three parts which gave each of them a sort of stand-alone status. Therefore calling Jackson's LotR films a trilogy is justified and has actually found widespread usage. The Hobbit films should however be referred to as a series. De728631 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we should not be applying our own interpretations of what constitutes a trilogy. Reliable sources have labeled it trilogy, so we can too.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions are based on expectations. Would most people expect trilogy or series? Either really, therefore series is better because not all sources label them a trilogy. It also might not happen yet anyway GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget, the first sentence of the guideline mentions that "(film series)" should be used. It mentions trilogies as an afterthought, that they may be used if sources often refer as such. It's not OR to say it's a series. It might be OR to say it's a trilogy. "Trilogy" is clearly controversial, series isn't. Therefore we should use "(film series)" as then there is no doubt. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly we do not know how the three films will be referred in the future but as of right now it appears that trilogy is being used more than series. If this changes we can always revisit the issue in the future.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it isn't a series? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with TriiipleThreat here. We evidently cannot agree on an objective definition of 'trilogy,' so, as I've said, we should appeal to the films' characterization in secondary sources. --MattMauler (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have guidelines on this. Trilogy is the controversial choice. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trilogy is an acceptable choice by the same guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable, yes, but as I mentioned above, the first sentence of the guideline mentions that "(film series)" should be used. It mentions trilogies as an afterthought, that they may be used if sources often refer as such. It's not OR to say it's a series. It might be OR to say it's a trilogy. "Trilogy" is clearly controversial, series isn't. Therefore we should use "(film series)" as then there is no doubt --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The order of the sentencing in the guideline is of no consequence, the meaning is what is important. Also its not OR to call it a trilogy because we have reliable sources to back it up. And as of right now, trilogy is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME than series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not really. A trilogy is always a series, a series of three isn't always a trilogy. Series is more generic, but no less correct. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy, since most reliable sources (Condé Nast, Associated Press, Reuters, AFP) now commonly refer it as a trilogy, along The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Also, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think naming "Trilogy" is controversial. It actually makes it more precise in scope. WP:NCF also suggests "When trilogies are often referred to as such by outside sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy." If the films will be extended beyond three, I will support the other one. But the thing is, it's currently referred to as a trilogy by the majority of the sources. (In my perspective or opinion, it's like the page move of Victoria of the United Kingdom > Queen Victoria article, there are more than one of Queen Victorias who had their own respective articles but the common knowledge is that the commonly referred to as the Queen Victoria is the Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom.) Nevertheless, I think the page should be moved immediately as it makes the page misleading and outdated. Woofygoodbird (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if I digress a bit:
A reminder: We are discussing the title of the page. Within the page, the two terms should be used interchangeably, whichever title we choose. I think this should be aired because at least one edit has been reverted because it used the word 'trilogy.'
Before we go in circles again, let me explain. I understand the discussion: 'Trilogy' is allowed by WP:NCF but it's controversial (as this discussion shows), so 'series' is certainly sufficiently descriptive; it IS a series. However, should this discussion result in 'film series' being the title, we cannot police the article removing uses of 'trilogy' if they are drawn from secondary sources and cited. The article will be built on these same sources; future editors (and some current editors) will be unfamiliar with the discussion taking place here. They cannot be held to a rule decided here because we consider the term used in secondary sources to be 'controversial' according to our definition. If a source uses it, so can an editor (provided the source is reliable). Let me reiterate: either title is serviceable, but in the article both should be allowed because we rely on sources. --MattMauler (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling "trilogy" controversial is also misleading, I have yet to see a reliable source stating that such a label is incorrect. Its however contested by some editors. Wikipedia is based on the idea of verifiability in reliable secondary sources, not the personal opinions of its editors. So unless contested by secondary sources, "trilogy" is not only non-controversial, it is both acceptable and accurate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'trilogy' would be perfectly accurate, and I don't really understand the objections. I was just summing up the arguments of both sides ...and stating that even if it's not ideal, 'series' would still work in my opinion.
I'm not trying to play both sides, but I do want it to be known that I'll go along happily with whichever title is chosen. The sooner we reach a consensus, the sooner we can change this thing! --MattMauler (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you'd like to see a source that says it isn't a trilogy, I'd like to see one that says it isn't a series. "Trilogy" is controversial, as this debate evidences. Most people are saying that either is fine, some are saying that we shouldn't use "trilogy", but only one is inexplicably saying that it isn't a series. As I said before, it may or may not be a trilogy, but it is definitely a series. "Series" is non-controvertible and recommended at WP:NCF. To deconstruct the guideline once more, surely we should only be using "trilogy" if there is no opposition to its use. Bear in mind the guideline says the "series" should be used, and "trilogy" may be used. See the difference? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to The Hobbit (film series); there's clear consensus the article needs to be moved; this option has the most support. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit (2012 film) → The Hobbit film trilogy – Similar naming practice like The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Move this page to "The Hobbit film trilogy", articles for separate films (The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Hobbit: There and Back Again) will be created later, when they are released. Support me. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 14:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:NCF#Film series states we should only use trilogy when outside sources refer to films in that manner, otherwise they should be disambiguated with (film series). Move proposal has not established that sources refer to the adaptation as a "trilogy", so disambiguating in this way is not consistent with the naming conventions for film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reliable sources for trilogy have been presented in the preceding discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that "film trilogy" is even applicable here, since it is essentially a disambiguation term. It seems to me the two alternatives are The Hobbit trilogy and The Hobbit (film series). Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're supposed to get consensus on controversial moves, regardless of whether or not you think it is controversial. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that wasn't directed at me, becuase I agree a consensus is needed for any move likely to be contested.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just a general comment, since you did not undertake the move. A move should not be initiated just one day after a formal move request is placed. The move template stipulates that 7 days must elapse before the discussion can be formally closed. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twas a comment aimed at the original mover of the article, not TriiipleThreat. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support there's overwhelming consensus above. And a dose of common sense would go a long way here, considering other trilogies have similar articles. If reliable sources use another term in the future, it can be moved then. Hot Stop 14:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming consensus? Can you show me where? If there is a consensus it is on series, not trilogy GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then move it to that. Either way, there's overwhelming consensus against the current title. Hot Stop 14:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for The Hobbit (film series) GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any mention of trilogy in the title GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for The Hobbit film trilogy. I already stated my reason above this section. 180.191.216.83 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I change my mind and I'd personably like it as 'film series', because the Hobbit is one book, not a trilogy. And in my eyes it would seem out of place if we suddenly changed it into a trilogy, just because its three films. And also because most films have 'film series' in their name anyway, it also seems like a more professional wording. Charlr6 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget, The Lord of the Rings is one book split into three. --haha169 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that someone started a new discussion, when one has already been taking place. Anyway, as I stated above, oppose The Hobbit film trilogy, as it remains to be seen whether this is a trilogy per all the reasons stated in the above section, but support The Hobbit (film series), which is per WP:NCF and incontrovertible. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Rob Sinden is correct, a trilogy is a series and both are acceptable per naming conventions. Although we should strive to be as accurate as possible when we can. Still I am deeply concerned about the amount of POV being interjected into this discussion. The only prerequisite required to name a series a trilogy is that it be referred as one by outside sources (which in this case, they do). As editors it is our job to remain neutral, regardless of our personal opinions. Per guidelines, it does not matter if the source material is one book. The artistic connectivity of the films do not matter. We are not judges of art. And regarding if it may or may not become a trilogy, by our standards of proof, it already is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, Hear! --MattMauler (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as well. I have expressed my views in detail in the discussion above the move request. --MattMauler (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing the name to series or trilogy. This article is clearly about all the planned films, not just the one coming out at the end of the year. --haha169 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The page is now move-protected to prevent further move warring. Please not that this is not an endorsement of the current name but it does mean an admin will be needed to close this discussion and take the appropriate action. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can this please be resolved already. It is an annoyance that we have to go on about this change in name; can we stop procrastinating and come to an agreement already. The fact is that as per WP:NCF the name The Hobbit (film series) is suitable for the page, unlike the current name, and so we should change it. In the future if we see fit to change the name again we will do so then when the time comes. Though now is the time to change to The Hobbit (film series), what more discussion is necessary? Please just change it and be done with it, please! (agree) -- User:2nyte 11:33, 7 August 2012 (AEST)
So can we agree on The Hobbit (film series)? I think most people who preferred "trilogy" opted for "(film series)" as a close second choice, and this is as per the WP:NCF guideline. This discussion has been going on for a couple of weeks now, so it should really be wrapped up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that while this discussion has been taking place, there has been recent consensus to move The Lord of the Rings film trilogy to The Lord of the Rings (film series), as it was felt that the wording "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" did not correctly apply the rules or spirit of WP:NCF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for The Hobbit film trilogy. We're not actually talking about the book itself or how Tolkien envisions the whole Middle-Earth/Arda literature, we're discussing the adaptation, which isn't exactly bound to how exactly the literature works. I understand (somehow, I hope.) what User:Robsinden wants to say about The Hobbit or LOTR films/books not being a bona-fide/official trilogy, but most common-people refer to it as such anyway. But I also think it's wrong to deprive them of the knowledge of what a trilogy really is. As I see it, the vision that del Toro sees the adaptation as single film but in many parts might be outdated since he's not the director anymore. I'm not saying that The Hobbit (film series) is wrong, it is also a right choice, but it presents a vague approach to the subject as viewed by the common reader. What's happening now in the real world is that people today have in their common knowledge that Jackson's adaptation is now a trilogy. I personally don't know why Warner Bros. did that, (maybe because of marketing purposes?) but the thing is it's now a trilogy as most reliable sources refer to it as such. If we don't have a lot of sources to back this up, or if the adaptation is to be extended to 4 or more, or retracted to 2 again, then The Hobbit (film series) will be the right choice. I'm just saying. Woofygoodbird (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As was recently pointed out to me, the use of "film trilogy" is a misapplication of WP:NCF, which suggests either "trilogy" or "(film series)" as the correct disambiguator. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for The Hobbit (film series). This would fit better with the normal naming conventions, and the article for the Lord of the Rings trilogy was recently moved to have the name The Lord of the Rings (film series) anyway. Alphius (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alternate Idea

With the Marvel Cinematic Universe, each film apart from The Avengers is stand-alone and focused on the origin story of that character, even though all of them, are in the same universe. My idea I just had, is what if, and this will be way in the future, but before anyone says 'we'll discuss this then', I have just written the idea down to partly be discussed now for future reference, but we merge "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" pages together, but have each film have its own separate pages obviously, like like "Iron Man", "The Incredible Hulk", "Thor", etc have their own pages, but over-all page is the "Marvel Cinematic Universe". What if, we create an entire new page that has information on both Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit together in a, for example "Middle Earth Cinematic Universe" page, not the title we would probably end up with, I know that there is a "Middle Earth in Film" page I believe, but that contains EVERYTHING about any Lord of the Rings related media such as radio, tv or film. But this page would be strictly a page focusing on Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" now three-parter and The Lord of the Rings films. Like I said, I wrote this down before I forgot so it can be partially discussed now and might also help us with an idea on what to do currently, but will be mostly for future reference.

In basic, just like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, all of its separate films have their own pages, but the MCU is it's own page. There isn't a "Iron Man (film series) page", so should we in the future merge the Peter Jackson "Lord of the Rings" and Peter Jackson "The Hobbit" into one page, just like the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Charlr6 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Middle Earth in film page already exists. We're debating now what to call this page. Also as stated earlier the long term goal is for each film to have their own articles, once each achieves their own notability.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read what I said? I said I know that page exists, but I clearly said a page JUST for the Peter Jackson films. The Marvel Cinematic Universe page doesn't list the old 1990 Captain America on it.

And I know that each film will have its own page, just like the Lord of the Rings films do, and The Hobbit will, but that still doesn't stop a page being dedicated to just Peter Jackson's films.

And like I said, I bought up the idea before I forgot so it could be briefly discussed, not a new huge discussion entirely. Charlr6 (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I guess I was just thrown by the fact that this included in the name change proposal. While this proposal has merit, it should be handled separately.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to have it as a new 'discussion', but thought it would at the moment be sort of relevant on here at the moment. Charlr6 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars is a pretty good example of that type of set up, strange you didn't mention it. My concern with this proposal is that we don't know what The Hobbit+The Lord of the Rings is called yet. When all 3 movies are finished and someone gives the whole series a name then we should move and merge articles. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 02:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars is a good example. But you are right, we don't know what a) this final page will be called or the last two Hobbit films and b) if The Hobbit will be "The Hobbit film trilogy" or "The Hobbit (film series)".

In a few years, I'm pretty sure most of us will come back and possibly see this discussion and we can continue it then obviously, but like I said wrote the idea down before I forgot. Charlr6 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Please do not copy and paste content while attempting to move the article to another location. If editors require assistance, please consider WP:MOVE in the future. Thanks, Meph^talk 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Surely we can no longer say...

That the first two films will still be titled "An Unexpected Journey" and "There and Back Again"
That the current "There and Back Again" synopsis is accurate? U-Mos (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean that the title shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all, currently it is never mentioned that "There and Back Again" was one of the original titles. The Windler talk

Cast section change

Hi, I wanted to change the cast section into a table format as in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy cast section. It will provide the same information though in a simplistic form . And I don't think casting rumors or quotes as now appropriate as we have a confirmed cast list, or at least partial list.

You need reliable sources stating which actors will appear which films.--01:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit early to put in a chart like that. We don't know much about film three and having that for only two films seem a bit excessive. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current cast list is too bulky and too wordy. The cast list in the LOTR trilogy page is much cleaner and simple. Thus, we should change it. The only opposition is that "we need reliable sources stating which actors will appear which films" or "It's a bit early". The current format doesn't specify what actor appears in which film, so it will be the same (we can also put a disclaimer to clarify this), and what is meant by too early? We can change it later. - My opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter98172 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the cast list could use some trimming, but I think what the previous commenters were saying is that the chart format does claim to show which characters appear in which movies... which we don't know yet.
I think work should certainly be done to clarify/shorten the section, but if a box-chart is used, it should probably resemble a more generic cast list (e.g. two columns, just actors and characters).
That said, even though I'm in favor of a simpler (and more easily readable) chart form, some editors might want to keep the Jackson quotes, so it's good to air it here first and see what people think. --MattMauler (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the info (including the Jackson quotes) used to be relevant/encyclopedic, but now that the film (or at least the cast) is out of the early speculative stage, we should reduce it to just a list.
I believe the current cast section emerged out of what used to be a (prose) 'casting' section (back in Spring 2011). This is the reason for the information overload. If someone wants to rewrite a separate casting section containing some the extra info, that would be fine, but I don't think we need a tidbit for every actor.
So basically, I agree with you, Peter, but I do not think the list should mention the separate movies or regions/story-sections (Dale, Esgaroth, Erebor) because we still do not know which characters will be involved where/when.--MattMauler (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this would be a suitable replacement: CLICKY HERE. Or maybe we could have a note column with quotes. I particularly prefer the table over the current cast section. -- User:2nyte 1:21, 21 August 2012 (AEST)

Your change did make it much more readable, but I see that it was reverted. Evidently tables are unacceptable according to the official MoS (I was not aware either). The section does mention that a 'casting' section (separate from the list) may be included. This might be our best bet. --MattMauler (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're jumping the gun here. A comparative table showing actors in each film will be appropriate in time, but only once we have more than one film, and we know who will be in which film. At the moment, the cast section is a casting list, and per MoS, it shouldn't be tabulated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me; I posted below before I saw your comment. I now agree with you that a table would not be wise at this point. What do you think of my suggestion? : a simple (only actor as character) list accompanied by a separate prose casting section. --MattMauler (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that according to the MoS, the current (longer, unaltered) format is technically acceptable, but, as I said, I agree with you that the section is difficult to read because of the amount of information it contains. I would advocate changing the current "list" to a simple list (with actor first, character second) and adding a prose casting section with pertinent information which we decide should not be lost.... The 'casting' section should probably be written and posted at the same time as the reduction of the list in order to avoid alarming editors unaware of our conversation. I can start writing one, but it might take me a bit; it may be difficult getting casting info to hang together in a single paragraph. --MattMauler (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. A detailed prose description of the casting process would be a good way to collate the information so that it isn't lost when an comparative cast table is eventually added. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and incidentally, there is a comparative cast table in progress at Middle earth in film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shpuldnt this be merged with the lotr film series page

the 2 star wars trilogies do not have seprate pages there are the indivdiuals and one for all 6 thats it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.69.46 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said the same thing above in the 'Alternate Idea' that we would do in the future. We could only properly do this though after the first film has been released and when there is enough information released on the second.

But I do personally was well think that The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings film pages should merge together so there should be a sort of "Peter Jackson Middle Earth Film Series" page. I know there is already another page called "Middle Earth in Film", but that is talking about EVERYTHING that has been made on the radio or film and whatever else, but this page would be JUST For Peter Jackson's films.Charlr6 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a page may eventually exist (if it's notable!), but should definitely not replace The Hobbit (film series) and The Lord of the Rings (film series). The Star Wars page is actually about the franchise in general (movies, books, tv shows, toys, etc), and each Star Wars film has its own individual page. The reason The Lord of the Rings (film series) exists is because the three films were all part of the same production, with simultaneous principal photography for all the films; The Hobbit is a similar yet separate production, thus warranting its own article. This is different from Star Wars, where each of the six films had their own distinct production--this is why there's no analogous page for the Star Wars "Original Trilogy" and "Prequel Trilogy". Mildly Mad^T_C 18:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, this would be a good 2-3 years we could have a main page for both and that maybe also has stuff on merchandise like toys and video games set in the Peter Jackson universe. Probably won't be as much as Star Wars though, could also mention those two fan-made films that I think are even mentioned in the info box.Charlr6 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual film pages

I believe that there is enough information on this page for the first film, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adervae (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is enough information to make a page for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, though this page does cover the film(s) fairly well, so I don't think we 'need' to make a separate page (we can but we don't necessarily need to). Just wait a couple weeks; the marketing campaign and greater detail of the first film will emerge soon. It is then we should start the page for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. -- User:2nyte 3:37, 27 August 2012 (AEST)

This page should be rewritten

I think this article should be rewritten. It's outdated. It's very unbalanced and spends more time describing Del Toro's interpretation, then it focusses on the ideas of Peter Jackson. It's frankly weird to see the Del Toro parts be longer, then the production parts. (considering Peter Jackson's long production video's, I doubt there is less information then comments made by Del Toro before principal photography started. Also it lacks information about how Peter Jackson regards this interpretation by Del Toro (http://io9.com/5937177/peter-jackson-tells-us-how-much-of-guillermo-del-toros-design-dna-is-in-the-hobbit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.128.245 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that there is information that should be added, feel free to add it yourself! -PUNKMINKIS (TALK) 23:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2D, 3D, Del Toro

I've read that Del Toro didn't want to do the film in 3D but the studio was dead-set on it, and that was one of the reasons he departed as director. Has anyone else heard/read this? --RThompson82 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard that del Toro didn't want 3D, but this was not the reason for his departure. He left well before the film was officially greenlit, and the studio was going through major bankruptcy issues; 3D was a question that would have been settled later.--MattMauler (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Shouldn't all three films have separate articles as time goes on? -- Anonymous 173.57.44.147 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as time goes on there is an intention for separate articles on all three films as done with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Though as of now, The Hobbit (film series) page is quite sufficient. -- User:2nyte 15:22, 3 September 2012 (AEST)

At what point though? An Unexpected Journey comes out in three months, I'm surprised that one doesn't have an article yet. Hot Stop 05:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think 2nyte covered it pretty well in the talk 3 categories above this one. The closer we get, the more information and detail will be put out. Now, if you think you have what it takes to make a good page for the first movie, I personally say go for it, go ahead and make The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. If not, be patient, it WILL be made. -PUNKMINKIS (TALK) 05:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is that there should not be much redundancy between the individual film articles and this one. Casting information, for example, should probably remain at this article, given their back to back production. I think one reason why an article for An Unexpected Journey hasn't been made yet is that there does not seem to be a substantial amount of information solely about that first film, as opposed to the development and production of the three films as a whole. At any rate, it might not be a bad idea to start an article for An Unexpected Journey in the Article Incubator, which would be moved into the mainspace once it has been developed. Also, we might want to consider spinning off the development section of this article as a stand-alone article, like Production design of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and Principal photography of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Cliff Smith 18:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there is a great desire for a article to be made for An Unexpected Journey, I just made an incubator article, as proposed by Cliff. It can be found here. -- User:2nyte 16:49, 4 September 2012 (AEST)

Where was there a consensus to turn The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey into a redirect? As this movie comes out in just two months, I think it's reasonable for it to have its own article. Zeromus1 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The long-term goal for the structure of the articles was first brought up in Requested Move II and referenced in many subsequent discussions. It's not about a timeline or deadline but when there are enough independent sources for each film to warrant there own articles. For example the sources in the latest attempt at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which was essentially just a cast section did not distinguish which characters were appearing just in that particular film but instead used the general term The Hobbit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to where this was discussed recently? The most recent "requested move" discussion I see on this page occurred in August, and then it more recently was decided in the thread above to create a new article. After it was decided in the thread above (last month) to create the article, I'm asking where it was decided more recently to merge them again. Zeromus1 (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your comment again, I think perhaps you were referring just to the discussion in August. I don't agree that the August decision to merge the articles should overrule the more recent decision to give the first movie its own article. This movie's release is quickly approaching, and surely we can all agree that eventually it will warrant its own article. In this situation, I don't think a consensus for what was appropriate two months ago should overrule newer decisions. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What more recent decision? As recently this thread some editors have suggested to wait for more sources. Again we do not operate by deadlines. The article will be made but not before it is ready. It might be before the release or after, it depends on the material that comes out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in this thread, Hot Stop and Punkminkis expressed the view that if someone thought they could do a good job making an article on the first movie, that person should go ahead. But when someone decided to go ahead, you restored the redirect because of the outcome of the discussion in August. I'm open the the argument that the first movie shouldn't have its own article yet, but I disagree with your reasoning for why it shouldn't. The decision should be based on what's the case now, not what was the consensus two months ago. Zeromus1 (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

This needs a source, and someone ought to figure out whether the first film will come out on November 28 or December 14. I've seen both dates in articles, and I've also seen both dates in the same article. This article at BBC says "Next month's world premiere of The Hobbit will see New Zealand's capital Wellington renamed Middle Earth, after the film's fictional setting. The city will spend 1.1 million New Zealand dollars (£557,800) preparing for the event on 28 November." This article is from this month, so "next month's world premiere" means the premiere will happen in November. But later, the article says "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is due for world-wide release on 14 December". Does anyone know why this article gives two separate release dates? Zeromus1 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reference from the infobox, which is dated 31 August and gives the 14 December release date. I'm not sure about the above reference's conflicting dates, but after doing some searching online[1][2][3][4] it looks like 14 December is indeed the release date. The BBC ref says "preparing for the event on 28 November", but that seems somewhat unclear, is it preparing on that date, or is the event on that date? Is it referring to the premiere? I'm not sure, but I think as all of the references I could find use 14 December that's likely to be the date, as much as I'd love to see it a few weeks earlier. - Sudo Ghost 13:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Image

While this page is, of course, about the film series as a whole and not the first film, we should be aware that because of the rather small image used on the page, Google isn't pulling in anything from Wikipedia for "The Hobbit"-related searches. Take a look at Google's search results (right-hand side) for "The Hobbit" to see what I mean. That's known as Google's Knowledge Graph and they try to pull in images and data from reputable sources so that they can display rich information in search results. Since the image we have on the page is "not ideal" from their POV, they're pulling in a pretty poor Photoshop job from a fan site as the main image that's tied to the Hobbit. If we could find a suitable movie poster-esque image for this Wikipedia entry, I think we could provide a much better result for searches and continue Wikipedia's reputation as an awesome source of both information and imagery for users and Google. Note that the poster from the first movie is uploaded here with appropriate copyright attribution. Not sure if it is appropriate for use, but I'd love to see it up. - mikkei 12:04, 15 October 2012 (PST)

Once the individual film articles reach independent notability from this article, I'm sure the film posters will be added to each article's infobox. Futhermore I don't think we should concern ourselves with Google's practices.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]