Talk:Melian (Middle-earth)

Spelling

Counsel(l)ed can be spelled either way, and I've used it in each. I think one is the European way, the other the American (don't quote me on that though), so it's really a matter of personal preference.

The Manual of Style says to use British English for Tolkien articles. Thu 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundant sections?

I've replaced "House of Thingol and Melian" tree with template, but I'm not quite sure that the tree is needed overall: Melian has little to do with the descedants of Olwe and Elmo, and those which are relevant in the article appear in the Half-elven tree - which is more appropriate as shows Melian's importance to later history. Also I suppose "Etymology" section is needless. As it stands now, all information from it would be more convenietly included into the main text, alternatively much more etymological detail must be inroduced (but this would entail original research). --Súrendil 12:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, once again I can't agree. Melian is a major character of the Silmarillion, her relation to descendants in the third age is secondary. The half-elven tree is actually superfluous to an article about her and could be a one line reference in the text. Part of the difficulty in using a template tree instead of individual family tree is that the template forces its own view and the tree can't be tailored to the character. The previous tree could be individually modified to leave out Olwe and Elmo (who are at least her in-laws - what do Finwe, Indis, Hador, etc have to do with this article?). Tree should fit article, not article fit template. Etymology is of interest and if you remove it people will begin interrupting the text by entering the same things parenthetically into the acticle text leading to poor formatting which is why words have been moved there in the first place.Tttom1 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

See Talk:Melian for reasons to move this article to main namespace. Súrendil 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Melian (Middle-earth) to Melian as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 11:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

picture

can we please post a picture of her in this article?. THX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.8.240 (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Undelete old history?

Given the article was recreated and previously deleted, I think it would make sense to restore the past history of the article and talk pages. This would also allow us to confirm whether the new version is a significant improvement (which is likely). Ping User:Ritchie333 who closed the AfD and deleted the page (also User:Wbm1058, not sure why the talk page was deleted twice...?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest that you judge the current extent of the article's sourcing on its own merits, and perhaps a WP:BEFORE to see if there's any other sources relevant to the subject topic which this article have yet to cite. Haleth (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The minimal action is to link the old AfDs above here in a standard talk page history record. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done – After this was deleted, I restored the history to move it off the base title Melian which is a disambiguation (obviously a deleted topic cannot be a WP:Primary topic). Hence the need for the second deletion. wbm1058 (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Interesting to see the deletion argument, consisting largely of there not being secondary sources in the article; the actual criterion would be that no such sources existed (in the world), in this case false; it seems to be a common error at AfD more widely. WP:BEFORE by the !voters would swiftly have established the existence of multiple reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Two of the sources I used are from the year 2020, which the late-2019 AfD predates. Even without them though, there are plenty of sources to adequately support most of the content presented in the recreated article. Yes, I agree with the view you formed about this AfD error being a widespread issue. Haleth (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move February 23 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

---

• Melian (Middle-earth) → Melian
• Melian → Melian (disambiguation)

It has been one week, and no other editor have objected to the restoration of this article which was previously deleted via AfD. Myself and Chiswick Chap formed the view that the consensus of the AfD was in error and this article should not have been deleted in the first place, and no response had been forthcoming. Therefore, I am requesting that this article be restored as the primary topic for Melian, per the same analysis and reasoning provided by Súrendil in Talk:Melian. No other topic of the same name have emerged since 2007 as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and no known notable individuals are known mononymously as "Melian" so WP:NAMELIST does not apply. Haleth (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per page views there is no primary topic given the views of Milos which has greater long-term significance too (see wikt:Melian). – wbm1058 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That can't be right. Wiktionary can state that an adjective of the island of Milos is "Melian", but if readers want "Milos" they'll search for that. Melian of Middle-earth was not much sought for when Tolkien readers knew she was just a redirect; happily, searches for her have jumped to what will be a more than respectable 20,000 per year. Further, the Middle-earth Melian is the only one to have an article here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The great majority of uses I find on Google Books are for the adjective of Milos, and there are only occasional hits for the Tolkien character. The term "Melian" is ambiguous, there are multiple articles it can refer to, and it's irrelevant if only one of them is titled in a way that would suggest it could be moved to the primary title. Adjectives are viable dab entries, and so are people with the name (almost everybody is referred to, in certain contexts, mononymously using their surname), so these can't just be discounted. Still, direct comparisons of pageviews for the target articles are meaningless in such a context, so if anybody is interested in relevant data, they'd need to wait until it shows up in the clickstream dataset. – Uanfala (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, no one is saying a Melian (disambiguation) shouldn't be created as that is the other proposal I raised, and even then, disambiguation pages are not an indiscriminate directory per WP:PTM so your argument that any and all people with such a name shouldn't be discounted is not convincing. In response to your concerns about Google Book searches, the greatest use of the term "Melian" on Google Books actually refers to the English translation of the Melian Dialogue, itself a somewhat fictionalized account of negotiations between Athens and Melos, which were both independent city states at the time. The proper demonym or adjective for people, things or concepts in relation to the modern city of Melos or Milos is Greek, not Melian, and there is zero likelihood that the city will ever achieve statehood or independent sovereignty again. All the instances of "Melian" in the city's article refers to an adjective of the city state of antiquity (which is arguably a different topic from the modern city but lacks a standalone article) or the Melian Dialogue (which was merged with the Siege of Melos four years ago to the objection of no other history-focused editors), neither of which has a standalone article on Wikipedia, and if there was, Melian would have been redirected to Milos or Melos when the original primary topic, the Tolkien character, was temporarily deleted. These reasons casts doubt on the long term significance you've argued over as "Melian" needs to be combined with another term, or discussed in further context within another topic for the benefit of the reader with regards to Milos' history. In other words, the context of the primary use of "Melian" as argued by you is essentially a partial title match as they all lack standalone articles.

Right now, we have an article about a character from Tolkien's legendarium which unambiguously bears the same name, which is the clear primary topic for the word in 2021, and had remained so for 13 years on Wikipedia until it was temporarily deleted as a result of a malformed and ill-informed AfD exclusively participated by bad faith editors. No convincing rebuttal is provided in your arguments that Melian (disambiguation) is not an adequate solution for listing things which directly conflict with each other that share the exact same name, but all lack standalone articles except for the proposed primary topic. In fact, Melian (disambiguation) served that exact purpose for 13 years. Haleth (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC).

I would just like to re-iterate that the standalone article for the Greek Melian is Milos, which is not at all a partial title match – Melian is an alternative name referring to the article. It may be given less weight as it's an adjective and not a noun, but it can't simply be discounted. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a partial title match if one counts Melian Dialogue, which now redirects to Siege of Melos and is covered there as a subtopic. The point I tried to make is that the most notable use of "Melian" as an adjective in literature is to do with the ancient city state, which is not the primary topic of any existing standalone article on English wikipedia, but a subtopic of an article about the modern city of Milos. If you concede that an adjective of an article gets less weight when assessing whether it is a primary topic, then I'd wager that the adjective of an article's subtopic gets even less weight. Haleth (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Actually, the name Melian is a correct demonym, similar to Seattleite, Athenian, or Varsovian. Based on NGRAMS[1] its commonality did not change significantly after the publication of the fictional name. Therefore, I'm sure that the fictional topic is not primary usage for "Melian"; either the island is or there is no primary topic and we should have a dab at "Melian". (t · c) buidhe 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. No case that it's a primary topic. But thanks are due to the re-creators of this article in the face of ridiculous opposition. Had I been closing the AfD I would have discarded the nom and all of the delete !votes. Wikipedia is not perfect! But the re-creation and page history recovery are a definite improvement. Andrewa (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Melian in Middle-earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 19:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. As an initial observation, I think the title is rather odd. This is not a real-world concept or thing appearing in a work of fiction (like for instance Plants in Middle-earth), this is a fictional character. A title using the same construction as e.g. Balin (Middle-earth) would make a lot more sense to me. Melian (Tolkien character) might make the most sense, but I don't know if there are any other titles along those lines. TompaDompa (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Let's move it to "Melian (Middle-earth)" as soon as this is finished. There aren't any "(Tolkien character)" titles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• I have added some links and removed some duplicates.

• Thank you.

• I have tweaked a bunch of references, adding links and fixing errors.

• Noted, and thanks.

Lead

• I don't know if the body of the article really justifies describing Melian as a "pivotal" character in the First Age. "Important", perhaps.

• Fixed.

Fictional biography

• I'm guessing that parts like It is said that she arrives in Middle-earth to teach its birds to sing that do not appear in the cited source(s) is implicitly sourced to Tolkien's writings?

• Yes; added explicit ref.

• "child of Ilúvatar" is fairly esoteric, basically Tolkien jargon.

• Replaced.

Creation and conception

Analysis

• Might be worth including Fontenot's description of Melian as "the Orpheus of Arda", if you can find an appropriate spot for it.

• Added.

• Might be worth including Fontenot's comparison to Cassandra.

• Added that too.

• Melian is a Homeric female archetype. – I think this is going too far. Fenwick draws a fair amount of parallels between Galadriel and the women in Homer, but barely discusses Melian at all—except in relation to Galadriel.

• Yes. Toned down.

• In an entry for the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia titled "Music in Middle Earth", Bradford Lee Eden remarked that Melian's daughter Lúthien is named Tinúviel or "Nightingale" by Beren, even though that bird, the nightingale, is connected with Melian's backstory – I don't find this in the cited source?

• Removed.

Genealogy

• It seems a bit odd to me to not indicate the (rough) number of generations on Aragorn's side of the family tree.

• Ok, we'll use the full Half-elven template then. She's about his 65th-great-grandmother.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See my comments above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No obvious neutrality issues.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa: many thanks for the suggestions. All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.