Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth

This is a WikiProject, an open group of Wikipedia editors. New participants are welcome; feel free to talk to us!

WT:Me

	This page 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
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

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 240 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by if there are more than 5.

Article alerts

The following list is updated daily by a bot. For manual entries, add a thread as usual at the bottom of this page.

Did you know

21 Jan 2026 – The Inklings (book) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
18 Jan 2026 – Tolkien: Man and Myth (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

04 Feb 2026 – The Eye (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Adamstom.97 (t · c); start discussion
03 Feb 2026 – Udûn (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Adamstom.97 (t · c); start discussion

Requested moves

03 Feb 2026 – Doomed to Die (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Doomed to Die by Adamstom.97 (t · c) was moved to Doomed to Die (film) (talk · edit · hist) by Royiswariii (t · c) on 10 Feb 2026; see discussion

Images of characters

Hello! I wanted to follow up on a post I made in the past about putting character images in infoboxes. That post was made through my old account, @Wafflewombat. The question that's been bothering me is this: is it really giving undue weight to, say, the Jackson films to put an image of Gandalf in the infobox, as he appears in the films? I understand why putting an artist's rendering counts as undue weight—the number of people who are familiar with John Howe's LOTR art, for example, is very small compared to the population of Earth. However, for likely billions of people, Ian McKellan's Gandalf is the image they most associate with the character. The pop culture saturation of those films is staggering, so aren't we merely giving due weight by posting the image that is most widely connected to the character? Regardless of what any of us think of the Jackson films, is it not more objective to honor their massive weight in pop culture, rather than using a Tolkien drawing that very, very few people have ever seen? To say that only Tolkien's drawings can appear in infoboxes seems, in my humble opinion, to be a Tolkien-purist attitude. Although his work is the basis for all adaptations, LOTR is now, whether we like it or not, a global multimedia franchise that people engage with in many different ways. Should we not honor this reality by choosing to use the most widespread images of the characters in question? It seems strange that instead of using the most widespread images, we are choosing to use images that ostensibly are the most "pure" or "original" versions of the character. It feels a bit like that is coming from a personal agenda or preference, rather than an engagement with the topic in the most neutral way possible. Thanks in advance for any thoughts! 🧙‍♂️ OrdinaryOtter (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reasons here. The primary object of the article is plainly a character created by Tolkien; this is the root of all subsequent adaptations (animations, feature films, etc). As Wafflewombat rightly mentioned, it would be wrong to favour one adaptation over another, let alone over the original conception. In addition, we already have a non-free image of McKellen's portrayal in the relevant section, where the image properly accompanies the matching cited text: i.e. the image is correctly placed. Non-free images are limited in resolution, so are not ideal for infobox use, and can only be used as stated in their Non-Free Usage Rationale. This rationale is basically to show readers how the character looked in the Jackson/McKellen presentation; using such an image instead to head the article, which at the least has a wider context (book + feature film + animations + stage + radio + music...) than just one film, would be pushing non-free rather far. It is much preferred to use a free image in the infobox, as users can then copy this without concern, the page can if it is lucky appear on the front page, and pop-ups can display the image. Further, the project has a long-standing policy of not placing fan art, which would be an alternative to non-free images from films, in infoboxes. When the films come out of copyright, one could certainly consider a lead image combining different interpretations of the character; but until that time, we are constrained by the rule that non-free images can't be used in a gallery. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed reply. What do you think about the fact that pages for Harry Potter characters use still images from the movies in the infobox? Wouldn't those non-free images be removed if their use was a problem? I imagine that due to the fame of Harry Potter, those pages get a lot of views; they're not obscure pages that editors aren't aware of. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rowling retained creative control of the HP films, so they form part of her creation of the characters alongside her books, unlike the case with Tolkien. (See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One more question, if you're up for it. Are there cases where it would be correct to favor one adaptation over another, based on due weight? For example, let's say hypothetically there was a consensus to put a different image of Gandalf in the infobox. To put an image of McKellan's Gandalf would "favor" the Jackson film adaptations, but isn't that acceptable given how much notability they have? There is a mountain of content written about those films, but much less content about other adaptations. So wouldn't it be correct to give more weight to the adaptations that have more notability? Thanks for your time. 🙂 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We're starting to go round in circles here. I don't see why one would do such a thing, given that an image would favour a film director over the author as well as over all other films and other productions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. On a different note, are there many people active in the Middle-earth Wikiproject right now? I've noticed that on several talk pages, you are the only one responding to queries. I hope you're not carrying the project all by yourself! But if you are, that is admirable! It's clear you've put a lot of effort into Tolkien pages and other pages as well, and I want to thank you for all the contributions you've made. 😊 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of people monitoring various pages in the project. -- Elphion (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, glad to hear it! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of us weigh in at need. Strebe (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim English variant

I know there were some editors who felt we should use British English for The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim to align with other Middle-earth articles, including the previous New Line films. I felt American English was more appropriate for an American/Japanese film and that is what the article has settled on, but I have changed my mind on this and there is now a discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim#British English about changing this. MOS:RETAIN has been raised, but we can make the change if there is new consensus, so if you have any feelings on this please add your thoughts over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Inklings

I recently created The Inklings (book), and turned The Inklings into a disambig, but it has a lot of links pointing there. If Inklings is the primary meaning of "The Inklings", feel free to revert me and move/copy the disambig to The Inklings (disambig), with a hatnote in Inklings. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll fix this myself (restore the redirect, add hatnote), it seems pretty obvious most would look for the group, not the book named after it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's easily thr primary topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Doomed to Die (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) § Requested move 3 February 2026

An editor has requested that Doomed to Die (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) be moved to Doomed to Die, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. adamstom97 (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]