Talk:Middle-earth wars and battles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Middle-earth (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon

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.

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 must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why merge?[edit]

The article looks too long and cluttered. Seperate pages must be given to these. They are not minor battles. I propose we break up the article to seprate pages. LOTRrules (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As another list of mergers has been proposed, I second the above reasoning. This list is already way too long. We do need separate articles on a number of important wars and battles in the Tolkien lengendarium. De728631 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The list of battles in this article is too long. Short synopsis of each age with links to more detailed articles such as is done with the First Age is better editing.Tttom1 (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If we wouldn't merge, then the result would be delete, as very few of these battles are notable and almost none cite any sources. Not everything that Tolkien ever mentioned deserves a separate article.Garret Beaumain (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Sources can be added - as they need to be for every article on wikipedia, merging or not. The tag is for merge, or no merge - not merge, or deletion. As there is no clear consensus for 'merge' and no silence opposing the proposed merge - it, the merge, may not proceed: "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus, or if there is silence, proceed with the merger." Help:Merging.Tttom1 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
As there has been no consensus in the above discussion with a majority of editors opting for no merge I'm going to undo this one-sided cut-and-paste merging of [[First of Beleriand into this article. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of the 5 armies[edit]

This article clearly defines the five armies as: dwarves, elves, men, goblins+wargs, and eagles. But this is not something clearly defined as such in the book and in fact I've seen plenty of other sources (among them the Tolkien gateway) claiming that eagles were not an army and the "enemy" were two (either dividing them among goblins and wargs, or between the army of Gundabad and the army of Moria).

I find the second interpretation much more reasonable (after all, the eagles were not enough to constitute an army, just as other participants such as Beorn or Gandalf). But If we don't see a claim either way by a reputable source, we should not do it. That's why I'm modifying the article accordingly.--RR (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any source material that conclusively identifies the five armies; I've always assumed that it was the five who were present at the start of the battle (Orcs, Wargs, Men, Elves, Dwarves), and that Beorn and the Great Eagles don't count because they arrived later. But I agree that the article shouldn't make any claims without a solid source. trystero11 (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Hobbit most certainly does identify the Five Armies as being Wargs and Orcs on the one side and Dwarves, Elves and Men on the other. Ipse dixit. Captain Pedant (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sauron allegedly appearing in the Battle of Five Armies in the film adaptation of THE HOBBIT[edit]

I deleted the passage stating as a fact that Sauron will appear in Jackson's adaptation of THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN (2013). The evidence for this is weak.

This is the quote:

"I’m playing Smaug through motion-capture and voicing the Necromancer, which is a character in the Five Legions War or something which I’m meant to understand. He’s not actually in the original Hobbit. It’s something [Peter Jackson]’s taken from Lord Of The Rings that he wants to put in there."

It is questionable that Cumberbatch knew what he was talking about (as evidenced by the "something I'm [not] meant to understand" bit) nor is he a Tolkien reader (as "Five Legions War" illustrates). This quote should not be used as evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Five Armies vs Battle of the Five Armies[edit]

Tolkien's preferred form was the 'Battle of Five Armies' ('BOFA'), and not the 'Battle of the Five Armies' ('BOTFA'). I've checked the ebooks of 'The Hobbit' (Harper-Collins 2001) and 'The Lord of the Rings' (Harper-Collins 2004) and these are the results:

'The Hobbit' - BOFA occurs twice. BOTFA is only used in a brief uncredited preface that is clearly not written by Tolkien, since it refers to 'Professor Tolkien' in the third person.

'The Lord of the Rings' - BOFA occurs 4 times in the main text (see 'Of the Finding of the Ring', 'The Shadow of the Past', 'Many Meetings', and 'A Journey in the Dark') once in Appendix A ('Durin's Folk'), as well as 3 times in the Index; BOTFA occurs only once in 'The Tale of Years' (Third Age, 2941).

Discounting the third party preface in The Hobbit, and leaving aside the LOTR index, BOFA was the form used on 7/8 occasions by Tolkien. This is strong evidence that BOFA was his preferred form. We should therefore use this version when referring to the books and not be influenced by Peter Jackson's use of BOTFA in the movie. If you disagree, please discuss here. Otherwise, I will revert the title to 'Battle of Five Armies'.

Proposed merge with Minor battles in The Lord of the Rings[edit]

Mostly plot-only; 'minor battles' are WP:NOT. Izno (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest just redirecting that to The Lord of the Rings. It is just the sort of pointless fantasy-as-history list that belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia. Mezigue (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mezigue: Done. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a form of deletion. The appropriate methods of deletion are WP:PROD and WP:AfD, neither of which were followed here. Based on Prod, I'm challenging this deletion, and have restored the article accordingly. If you wish to delete it, please nominate it at WP:AfD. That way, if the community decides it belongs on Wikia, then exporting (transwiki'ing) to there can be properly discussed and implemented (rather than burying the content, as was done here). Thank you. The Transhumanist 11:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Merging includes actually moving the content into the destination article, which was not done here. See Wikipedia:Merge#How to merge. The Transhumanist 11:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I proposed a merger where it sat for 10 months--the only feedback I ultimately received (and happen to agree with) was "redirect without merge". Did you review WP:Merge to confirm to yourself that I followed the process? The fact is that the information is not deleted and can be resurrected for working at any time you see fit--which you seem unlikely to do so, based on your commentary here. Regardless whether the community decides it belongs on Wikia, the information can still be transwikied there by anyone who so desires--you seem to be proposing a hypothetical that seems unlikely ever to be implemented, else you personally would have done so.

If you think the WP:BURO practice of confirming that result is to WP:AFD, I submit that you should AFD it instead, since you're the one who apparently wants a broader consensus. The "redirect without merge" = "delete" argument is at-best incorrect and at-worst, bogus, else you would not have been able to undo the redirect.--Izno (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, I did review the Merge instructions. The redirect you implemented doesn't appear to follow the definition of merge, as no content was copied to the destination article: "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page. Merging creates a redirect from the source page(s) to the destination page, with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page." So please explain to me how you followed the process when no merge was actually implemented. By the way, I found the (content in the article) informative, and would like to see it kept. The Transhumanist 11:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
"Informative" is not an indication of notability. To demonstrate such, the article in question should have sourced criticism and development--which it does not nor is it likely to ever have such. The reason no content was merged is that we cannot retain a neutral point of view in any of the potential target articles, not least because of the lack of reliably sourced information in the redirected article, which also means it fails to satisfy our core content policy. And lastly, per WP:MERGECLOSE, I judged the consensus to be "redirect without merging". Per all of those reasons, you should have zero reason to oppose a merge. --Izno (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: I'm not opposing a merger, I'm opposing a redirection-deletion. Your reasons sound like part of a deletion discussion. Nowhere do I see "redirect without merging" as part of the instructions in (WP:MERGECLOSE), which instructs going forward with the merger. In WP:MERGE, merging is very clearly copying the material to another article, which was not done. Therefore, this was not a merger. And deletions of this type can be undone by anyone. What I'd like to do is poke around a bit, and see if I can find anything that substantiates the content of the article or provides alternative navigation support. So far, I found one of the battles covered elsewhere, at Balrog#Durin's Bane. So maybe a link to that could be provided from a suitable starting point? Any suggestions on where to put the link? The Transhumanist 14:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middle-earth wars and battles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)