Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Character boxes

Tagging @Elphion: I think we should add the first and last appearances for both the novels and films. The novels are totally different to the movies. Characters like Tyrion Lannister for example, has his first appearance listed for both the ASOIAF novels and TV show. I think we should add images into the infoboxes, maybe something like characters from The Walking Dead, Rick Grimes's infobox pic is him in both mediums (Comics and TV show). The Optimistic One (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The project has not discussed how the change from {{infobox Tolkien character}} to {{infobox character}} should affect the project pages. There are many more parameters, not all relevant to these articles. That's why the specialized infobox template was developed in the first place. In particular, the primary target of the articles is how the subject is treated in the books, not in adaptations. The infoboxes should thus refer to the books. (Most of the adaptations of interest already have their own articles.) By project consensus, illustrations in the infobox should only come from editions of the books or other material by Tolkien, not from adaptations (precisely because most adaptations deviate so significantly from Tolkien's vision). Also, in the general template many of the fields are not precisely defined. What does "first appearance" mean? First in MS, first published, first in Middle-earth chronology? If we're going to use these fields, the project should define how they are to be used. -- Elphion (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

More on character boxes

The character box property "portrayer" (and some of the other film-related properties) are being filled in -- but these appear at the top of the character box, implying that the films supersede or are more important than the books. I would delete these unless the they can be displayed at the end of the character box. --- Elphion (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Middle-earth

Portal:Middle-earth, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Middle-earth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Middle-earth during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the deal with Lists of Middle-earth articles

I'm not sure what this page is supposed to be. It seems to be a list of all Middle-earth lists, i.e. a listification of Category:Middle-earth lists, but the title does not reflect this. Is it meant to be an index of all ME pages? In its present state, it should be re-named to List of Middle-earth lists. But alternatively, it could be merged into the Outline of Middle-earth. Thoughts? BenKuykendall (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lists of lists are perfectly proper: they assist navigation and can be used as See also items and so on. The real issue is in the thread above, that all these articles will beare being deleted unless properly cited to reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

RFD flood

There are dozens of RFDs for obscure Middle-earth geography terms, some might be fixable if you offer a target. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, many should point somewhere helpful. That will be easier when we have some better-structured and better-cited articles (or lists, again decently cited) for them to point at. At the moment nearly everything needs to be cut down and to have reliable sources added. I'll do what I can but everyone can lend a hand, there is much to sort out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
As the person who's been doing the RfD's, I have been trying to retarget the redirects when possible, but yes, I have made a couple misses. There's been a lot of Middle-earth related AfD's that have resulted in redirects into the sections Middle-earth#Geography, and I've been trying to clean up the stray ones not mentioned at the target article either by retargeting to more specific article where they are mentioned, or at RfD. If I make a mistake by RfDing one that has a target, then point that out at the RfD page and I'll withdrawn the RfD. Hog Farm (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Aha. Well, my view would be that we should have as you say a list of places; I think we also need a decent list of the main players (is people the word? --- I see we are losing the (over-detailed) lists of individual elves, dwarves, etc, but we do actually need one list of the key players, and that would go a way down to major mythological figures like Nimrodel who now has no landing-place at all, not great), and of the main objects (famous swords, etc). These will then provide landing-sites for a good number of redirects, indeed we might need to create some. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Right now, I think the best "landing pages" are the main works that a character/locations/swords appears in. As a good example: Beleg redirects to The Silmarillion. (At the moment, I can't find a plot summary that mentions Nimrodel -- I know there was a poem about her in Fellowship... but is there another work she plays a bigger role in?) I also want to caution against redirecting to places like List of Middle-earth characters, which is only for characters with their own articles. On the other hand complete lists like List of The Hobbit characters are good targets. (see WP:CSC for the difference.) In any case, we can't redirect to articles that don't exist yet. If patently bad redirects get deleted, so be it. We can re-create them once appropriate high-level articles are written. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that not all the redirects are showing up in our article alert tracker (since not all of the redirect pages are part of the project). Thus if you want to see all of the ME RfDs, you need to scroll through the past few days of logs. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sensing that there's a bit of frustration with this process, and I can see why. I think part of the issue is that, for years, the focus almost seems to have been on quantity of Middle-earth articles, not article quality. There are several Middle-earth articles that I would consider to be definitely notable, like Mirkwood and Rohan (Middle-earth) that are in horrible shape because the focus when the articles were created was documenting every detail that Tolkien put in. I'm a fan of Tolkien's works, in big part because of his attention to the minutest detail in his works. However, not all of this detail needs to be reproduced on Wikipedia. I think User:BenKuykendall's suggestion that we should redirect to the works in which the characters appear is a very good one in cases where the character fails GNG. Likewise, I think the redirects of places not major enough to be mentioned in the geographical overview at Middle-earth#Geography should be redirected to the more specific geographic articles like Moria (Middle-earth), Mordor, and others. And frankly, if the location is not important enough to get described in one of the more specific articles, I don't think it should be a redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

AFD running on list of middle earth places

Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Middle-earth (2nd nomination). —Doncram (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much every fiction article is up for AfD, by a couple of editors, with a handful of supporters. Tolkien has suffered a lot already, but it's broader than that. Is there anyone still active on this project, or has the time of men now passed? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm still here (and I'm sure a lot more people will be comming in once the new show starts getting trailers). I agree I find it a bit bothersome that there are so many AFD now days instead of trying to improve pages that are flawed.★Trekker (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I see, All that is gold does not glitter has been deleted, a shame, I think it had enough merit to stay.Halbared (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I see Finarfin and Amandil will be deleted on the 6th without further edit. I am undecided as of yet. Is there sufficient information to warrant keeping these two?Halbared (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The deletionists have had their way with a large number of minor articles, I think correctly as they wouldn't be notable however well-written (the reliable secondary sources simply don't exist). Now there are only a few articles left, and those are on the more significant topics. I'd like to say they are obviously safe because their notability is obvious, critics and popular sources have written about them so there's no problem. But that isn't so: the articles are written almost wholly in-universe, and if they're cited at all, it's to Tolkien himself, a WP:PRIMARY source "if ever I heard one" (as the dwarf said of the hammering in the Mines of Moria). I took a look at Mirkwood and was horrified to discover how badly it was written (as a Wikipedia article with standard criteria, rather than as a lump of legendarium). Basically it made almost no claim to notability, waffled on at great uncited length about things barely mentioned even by Tolkien, and ignored all the other Mirkwoods but Tolkien's: not terribly helpful, and wide open to AfD. And that's a major and highly defensible topic. I've added a bunch of secondary sources and quotes by other novelists, so I guess it's safe enough for now; I then looked at the other core Middle-earth places, expecting to find things a bit better, but no: Rivendell, Mordor, Moria, Lothlorien, and even The Shire (though it at least mentions some decent sources) are all in a dreadfully vulnerable state. It's a pointless disaster in the making. Evidently, in-universe Wikidom was tolerated back in the 2000s when these articles were created: the '20s will be entirely different, and ruthlessly correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the in universe style seems, not appropriate. It seems a large job. I see things like Rhovannion go, and think ot possibly didn't deserve a page. What do you think on Dol Amroth, does that have any validity to stay? The ones you mention I would think so, but I have not read them yet.Halbared (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think Dol Amroth should redirect to Gondor where, frankly, it's a minor detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
What is needed is for all these articles to have the uncited material cut; the Tolkien paraphrases cut down to reasonable proportions; the literary critics to be cited and paraphrased; the popular sources (newspapers, film critics) to be mentioned and cited decently. Then we'll have a set of key articles that will assist the reader, demonstrate scholarship and popular interest, and ride out the storms of AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I strongly agree with you on this point. This might seem odd coming from one of the users who has been active in deleting the minor articles, but I think with Tolkien, we're getting close to where I draw the line of "this stays." I'm thinking White Mountains (Middle-earth) could probably go, but I think we're getting down to the proper core group of places. Now is the time to start improving what's left, so people don't get too carried away. Before the AfD wave, there was a intricate web of Tolkien articles. I'm hoping that once this wave is over, there will be another interconnected web of Tolkien articles, but one more focused on impact and broader topics and less on reproducing genealogies of hobbits and elves. Hog Farm (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. I am minded to mention one more property of a well-constructed encyclopedia: closure, namely that when the reader finds a term, it is explained either right there or in another linked entry. That could be a list or an article on another topic (like the plot summary in one of the books); and it implies we aim to keep redirects for all reasonably significant chaps in the text, even if they haven't attracted notability through literary criticism. Fingolfin is a case in point. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Many tolkien articles date back to the first 100,000 articles on Wikipedia, even the one on Barahir did, and it never had any source listed at all. It was not until maybe 2006 that the concept of notability was forged, and many of these articles date to 2002 or 2003. I have yet to see one date to 2001, which is the year Wikipedia launched, but it did not pass 100,000 articles until January 2004. Conveniently Dec. 2001 is when The Fellowship of the Ring is released in theatres, followed by The Two Towers in Dec. 2002 and The Return of the King in Dec. 2003. Yes in the 2020s we have realized that Wikia allows people to create fiction based, in-universe articles so we are calling for an order of things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Treabeard or Fangorn

Somewhere I seem to remember that Treebeard's proper name was Fangorn, but this does not seem to be reflected in our article. I think the forest he lived in was named after him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead now reads "Treebeard (Sindarin: Fangorn) ... He lives in the ancient Forest of Fangorn, to which he has given his name, ..." De728631 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

We should use present tense for character summaries

This is the general duirection of guidlines on how to write plot summaries of works of fiction. I have tried to bring this about, on articles on a variety of characters. It worked until I ran into aq hard headed opponent of reasonable control with me edits to the article on Théoden. It is this hard headed territoriality by hard core fans with no interest in focusing these articles in ways that they really conform to the focus needed in a general encyclopedia that has caused there articles to languish in a horrid state for 8 years and more. Wikipedia has an amazingly out of control coverage of fictional places, people and events. The Tolkien coverage is not actually as out of control as some, but it has stood longer than most other out of control examples.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This issue has now been brought up for the umpteenth time. In the past, a consensus was establish at this project not to use present tense for Tolkien's fiction because the author presented it as a fictional history of the real world. The main argument was that, per WP:FICTENSE, "discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well." Of course, consensus can change, but this hasn't yet happened. De728631 (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems quite clear that fictional history may be presented in the past tense, and the articles certainly read much better that way. In addition, the conversion of some of the text to the present tense was very rough, apparently done using global replace without checking, so not only was WP:FICTENSE not followed, but the text was disrupted with numerous grammatical and spelling errors. Consensus is to remain with the past tense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems John Pack Lambert is not only assuming bad faith, he’s also ignoring discussions on the talk page of the article in question, and has ignored responses to his query here and is now attempting to force his viewpoint. Lava Lamps (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why are we being bound by some ancient consensus, instead of discussing things anew. The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are no more written in other than present tense than a huge number of other works. I think people should at least defend with actual arguments such ignoring of the rules, not try to defer to some past consensus. We have seen that many other LotR past consensuses were just plain wrong. Doing it this way makes the articles inevitably seem more in universe, and also seem more like they are reporting on factual things in an encyclopedia instead of reporting on fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
We are discussing things anew. What you did, was ignore the discussion because you didn’t agree with any other contributor, called me a liar and attacked users and not the argument. That is not conducive to civilised discussion. Lava Lamps (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hogwash. Chris Chipswick is falsely accusing me of using global replace when I went through myself and edited each passage. He is disparaging a hardworking editor with false accusations and I do not apprecviate it. I have put my best efforts into the better writing of these articles, and all I get for it is this kind of malicious attack that falsely accused me of "disrupting" text and the like. This type of harrassment is how articles are kept in walled gardens and how editors who want to actually contribute to making readable articles are driven off. The above is a clear case of harrassment, flase accusation and speaking ill of an editor who never once cheats and uses sub standard methods but seeks to contribute to the work of Wikipedia even though it involves sacrificing hours in editing at times to have all my work just reverted by editors who would rather maintain a walled garden than actually see improvement. I do not appreciate such false statements about my methods.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You’ve called me a liar, and accused other editors of racism because the Gondor article is overlong. I humbly suggest you take a breather. You’re far to experienced an editor to be behaving this way. Lava Lamps (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not apprecite reverting my edits when they make total sense or blocking any positive contributions. I do not appreciate how my work is brushed aside and destoyed totally.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
And I don’t appreciate being called a liar. But that’s the situation we are in. Lava Lamps (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proper versus common names

I have been thinking that Merry and Pippin should be in articles reflecting how these are their common names, and not articles that use their proper names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I'm understanding what you mean, but am I right that you would rather have the articles Meriadoc Brandybuck and Peregrin Took moved to something like Merry (Hobbit) and Pippin (Hobbit)? That would go along with WP:COMMONNAME. De728631 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Those are incredibly clunky and require parentheses. An alternative already in use in some articles would be to use Merry Brandybuck and Pippin Took (much, indeed, as other hobbits would have disambiguated them if there was risk of confusion with any other Merry or Pippin). I see that those are (very sensibly) already redirects, so a requested move will be needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Merry Brandybuck and Pippin Took are indeed the better choices. If there is support to move the pages there, I could do that. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Either form is better than what they are currently at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m not convinced there’s enough coverage for separate articles on the hobbits Merry and Pippin. Outside of plot and adaptation there isn’t much to the articles that couldn’t got into a list of hobbits page Lava Lamps (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The consideration isn't so much what is in the articles as what ought to be in there. As for "adaptation" (film and so on), Shippey points out in The Road to Middle Earth 2005 that there is a much larger audience for the three LOTR films than the already enormous audience for the books; and in the film "world", the characters of the hobbits are very significant. Merging to a list of hobbits is a very doubtful proposition, not least because most of the "list of Middle-earth XXXs" have been deleted as mere cruftfests. I think we'd best look out more critical and scholarly sources about the little fellows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

While they are expanded in the films, that in itself isn’t really significant. There’s a few books out there that describe merry and pippin and the roles they play in the narrative. I need to pick up a copy of a couple of them to be able to properly reference them. Lava Lamps (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

My point isn't that we can cite the films, but that the films extended both the hobbits' importance and discussion of them. It's the critical books and papers that we need to cite, as you say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
something like this [1] Lava Lamps (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The link above does not actually go to a text. I have to admit I have my doubts that we will ever get support to cut articles on a character who appears with dialogue in all 4 books. If it was not for what happen's in The Return of the King I would advocate a joint article on Merry and Pippin. I still think merging the articles may have some merit, but they diverge enough in that book that I have a strong suspicion that we would get lots of opposition to that idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I have now moved the two pages to Pippin Took and Merry Brandybuck respectively. De728631 (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
And I've added critical and scholarly sources to both articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Excellent work. @Lava Lamps: as they were thinking of adding something from some of the chapters in Unsung Heroes of the Lord of the Rings: From the Page to the Screen by Lynnette R. Porter. The chapter titles look interesting: 'Literary and Cinematic Heroes, 'Merry as a Knowledgeable Hero'; 'Pippin as Impulsive Youthful Hero'; 'Éowyn as Action Hero', 'Galadriel and Arwen as Inspirational Heroes', 'Legolas and Gimli as Intercultural Heroes'; 'The Changing Social Definitions of Heroes'. Her sources are well worth looking up as well. There is also a book on Aragorn: Aragorn: J. R. R. Tolkien's Undervalued Hero by Angela P. Nicholas, originally published in 2012 but republished a few years ago in 2017. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of re-proposal to merge all volumes of The Lord of the Rings to its main article

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The AfD suggesting merge/delete and redirect has closed, and another discussion about merging all three LotR volumes' articles into The Lord of the Rings has now opened at Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Proposed merge of The Fellowship of the Ring etc into The Lord of the Rings, as of February 4.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Family Trees

Do we really need to have the family trees in character articles. Thorin Oakenshield is an example, it’s jut a large chart of related dwarves, not may of whom have their own article. It feels very fan-site rather than encyclopaedic. Lava Lamps (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

My take is that where the tree illuminates, we should keep it, and where it clouds, we should delete it. Bilbo's relationships say a lot about him - both quiet Baggins and adventurous Took, both middle-class and with a link to the airs-and-graces Sackville-Bagginses, it's very helpful, and the scholars cited in that section of the article think so too. On the other hand, where you have Dwarf27 begat Dwarf28 who begat ... there's not a lot of point really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lava Lamps and Chiswick Chap: if you guys are interested in the fate of the family trees, you should contribute to the TfD on the Finarfin family tree. A lot of possibilities to re-work elven family trees, but not a lot of opinions at TfD. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Using Peter Jackson screenshots for Infoboxes

I started a discussion at talk:Gandalf about using screenshots in the infobox, like here and here. I seem to remember images more like File:GANDALF.jpg being used in the infoboxes. If this is not an issue with the project, I'll let it go, but I just wanted to bring this up here. Please ping me with any comments. Cheers, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

FlightTime Phone: No, screenshots cannot be used in infoboxes. The only allowable use of copyrighted material is under fair use, which means you may only use a screenshot when it is necessary for the understanding of the text, and the appearance of the film is explicitly discussed (by a scholar or notable critic) in the text, cited to a reliable source. Inclusion of a screenshot for decorative purposes or general illustration is forbidden all across Wikipedia, not just this project. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap:I thought so. @Robin S. Taylor: please read this thread, comment if you wish. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Uh oh, then you'd better tell the editors of Jean-Luc Picard, Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty), and Harley Quinn, for starters, because they are the first three character articles I checked and they ALL use WP:NFCC content. Elizium23 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
We're all volunteers here. Anyone can tell them, and probably will. Since you've looked at those articles maybe you'd like to do it. WP:NFCC states the rules clearly enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and every one of those images has an NFCC rationale that covers the usage in the article, has been checked by Wikipedia's copyright watchdogs, and deemed appropriate, so you don't seem to understand the policy at all. (I've found five more examples, and they were the first ones I checked.) Elizium23 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Rudeness does not help; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument; and you can read the policy for yourself; I am not setting myself up as an expert, just relaying the news. The "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." may be important here: making the article look nice with an image at the top is I suspect unlikely to meet that element of the policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, here's a discussion about the threshold for character images: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Characters/actors images replacement Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Much of that discussion seems to be about other issues, but whatever its merits it can't change the policy one iota. My view is that the use of any non-free image must be extremely obviously good and proper, as non-free is at best a narrow and risky path through a marsh (or minefield, choose your metaphor). Splashing an image at the top of an article gives the impression that it is being used decoratively or for general illustration, neither of which would meet the "Contextual significance" criterion quoted above. And by the way, please stop pinging me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The images of Gandalf and Frodo that I moved had already been on their respective articles for some time without apparent problems. I merely moved them higher up the page. I do not buy that the fairness of their usage would be altered that much. Also my general experience on Wikipedia and elsewhere has been that fair use is much stricter for standalone images (including book illustrations) than for film and television screenshots, and that Wikipedians have generally preferred to have the latter as the main image for articles about fictional characters from this and other franchises. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
And I moved them back because they had been in context in those locations, whereas they were clearly out of context at the top. Out-of-Wikipedia experience certainly won't help here. The point to remember with all fair-use images is that they are somebody else's property, and we're using them on sufferance, with no rights over them at all. The precautionary principle in that situation is to use them very cautiously indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Diannaa: @Moonriddengirl: @Money emoji: pinging some copyright administrators who would know. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

there have been several adaptations of Tolkien’s work. Giving credence to Jackson makes this look like a fan site, rather than an encyclopaedia. Lava Lamps (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFCCP states that any non-free image we use must meet all ten criteria for inclusion. Any images that do not meet the criteria should be nominated for deletion using speedy deletion criterion WP:F7 (invalid fair use claim). The article Gandalf currently has three non-free images. Each needs to be individually assessed for compliance with the criteria and nominated for deletion if they don't. We have no entitlement to a non-free image, especially when a freely licensed image is available. Here's one: File:Gandalf specs.jpg. — Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I second Diannaa. Unfortunately, it seems as though MRG isn't around... Money emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 22:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There are two separate cases to consider:

1) The article is about a film, video game, or book, or a character found only in one of those. In that case, an extract from that film (etc) is entirely appropriate and natural to lead into the article, and can go into the infobox if there is one. Thus, a specific article about "Gandalf in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy" would be expected to have a still of Peter Jackson's film Gandalf at the top, justified by a Non-Free Use Rationale on the image page.

2) The article is about a character found in multiple places, such as book, film, game and other media. It may be possible to justify the use of a non-free image from one or other of these, say a film, but that image will be placed beside the text discussing that presentation of the character, and the NFUR discussion will succeed or fail according to whether the non-free image is really necessary to explain the claims made in that section of text about it. It would be quite inappropriate to place such a "local" image at the top of the article as its use there would be out of context and thus either decorative or illustrative (unnecessary), rather than explanatory, and would quite rightly be deleted on review. Thus a non-free image of Peter Jackson's film Gandalf in a general article on "Gandalf [in book, film, and other places]" should not go at the top of the article. (Of course if a CC-by-SA image is available there is no problem.)

I think that much of the discussion has been caused by some people considering case (1) and others considering case (2). Since these have different outcomes, it is necessary to consider the cases separately. Both may occur within WikiProject Middle-earth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This about sums it up. An example for case No. 1) would be Tauriel where the character is unique to PJ's interpretation of The Hobbit and a screenshot of Evangeline Lilly playing Tauriel is justified for use in the infobox. General articles on Tolkien characters like Gandalf, however, cannot be illustrated by film stills in a prominent spot like the infobox, since Ian McKellen is not the only "Gandalf" in the history of film and illustration. A section on adaptions may well include non-free images though to support the discussion of different ways of portrayals of the character. De728631 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Tolkien's legendarium vs The Lord of the Rings

There is a discussion at Template talk:Middle-earth on the proper roles of these two templates. Editors are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Legendarium template to cover legendarium, LOTR template to cover LOTR

There is a discussion at Template talk:Middle-earth#Legendarium template to cover legendarium, LOTR template to cover LOTR on whether we should remove the overlap between these two templates. Editors are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Troll (Middle-earth) at Articles for Deletion

An editor has raised a deletion discussion about this article. Project members are invited to contribute their opinions to the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Source checking at Concerning Hobbits

I’ve removed one source from Concerning Hobbits that was going to a fan forum, and tagged another that seems to be a fan blog. Can someone with a better grasp of WP:RS have a look and see what they think? Lava Lamps (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings (TV series)

There is a discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings (TV series) about whether this forthcoming Amazon series will be covering the events of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or earlier events from the Second Age of Middle-earth. Project members are invited to join the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Troll at GAN

Troll (Middle-earth) is at GAN. It has received comments which I have actioned. An uninvolved reviewer is requested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AFD in progress

Early_American_editions_of_The_Hobbit has be been nominated for AFD. Feel free to support object as you wish.Lava Lamps (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Importance-level assessment options

I've noticed that the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject has an importance option of "Related-class" in addition to the regular top-, high-, mid-, and low-importance options. For instance, Mordor Macula is within the scope of the project, and is listed as low-importance, but related-importance would really be a better description. Is it possible to get the ability to rate articles as related-class for these purposes? I think that would make a lot of sense for the species and craters and songs named after Tolkien items included in this project. Given the recent upheaval in this project's articles, I think a general re-rating of the remaining articles would be helpful. Hog Farm (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any means accessible to earthlings that would change the available enumeration of importance values. However, we can use "na" to mean "importance is not applicable for this project", i.e. since solar system objects are not in fact any part of the WikiProject. I suggest we use that for all such articles. Alternatively we could simply delete the project entry from those articles' talk pages as inapplicable, which might really be the right answer, as to be frank they don't belong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Niënor Níniel AFD

There's an AFD running for Niënor Níniel at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niënor Níniel. I hope posting a notice doesn't break WP:CANVAS, but this ought to be alright given that this is the relevant project. Hog Farm (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I've proposed a merger of Old Forest into Geography of Middle-earth, the appropriate discussion is at Talk:Geography of Middle-earth#Proposed merger of Old Forest. Please share your thoughts over at that section. Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Middle-earth Barnstar

File:Middle-earth Barnstar.png
Introducing Template:The Middle-earth Barnstar, the one barnstar to rule them all. Jerm (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the idea. The image page should state the source of the ring image. I also feel that the star should not overlap the ring, if we're to use that. But could we not find an image of, say, the Star of Eärendil? It boded well, where the Ring did not... and doesn't the machined bronze star feel more a product of Isengard than of Elvish craft? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I usually give attribution, but this was a last minute thing. It’s done now though. The barnstar, I can only use the one star per WP:B2G. If not, I can’t post it at WP:BARN. The best thing I can do is place the ring forward, and give the barnstar a silver-like color. I’ll create a separate file for that. Jerm (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking of just one star, not machine-like. Maybe a star too far, but silvery would be better, certainly. I'm opposed to the Ring for this purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Was working on the silver, it's not looking good. Trying to create a silver barnstar decreases the quality overall. Sharp edges and square pixels start to show. If I try softening the texture, the grey color that helps make the silver decreases. The current barnstar is the best I can do, sorry. Jerm (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. For me, an elvish star would be the opposite of a chunky block of machined Saruman-workshop metal; it would be a delicate, bright, soft, night-time sort of star. Just my tuppence'orth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Chiswick Chap: I was strolling on my-now deleted barnstar links and saw this one. This had me wondering, did you know what I meant by following the guidelines of WP:B2G? Jerm (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for asking. I see what you mean, but remain convinced that the thing that was deleted was horribly inappropriate for this context. Wikilove images can take a very wide range of forms from plates of strawberries to fluffy kittens, so there's no reason why something more in tune with Middle-earth could not be devised. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Per B2G, I have to use File:Original Barnstar Hires.png to make a barnstar, if not, it wouldn’t be considered a barnstar. I can’t really say that this project rejected my barnstar since it was only rejected by an individual editor. Honestly though, this WikiProject is not really active. Excluding the editors who just leave notices (AfD etc.), you seem to be the only one that edits topics related to this project. You were also keen on using a star from Tolkien’s work which makes me believe you’re a Tolkien enthusiast. Also, there are no rules for a WikiProject to only have a certain amount of awards. I’m thinking about having the barnstar undeleted, but I wouldn’t add it here of course. I don’t want to force anything on a WikiProject, but since there is no barnstar for this WikiProject that meets B2G, I can still add it to WP:BARN. Jerm (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou, yes, that's very clear. I'm not sure why you think I'm a "Tolkien enthusiast"; I have worked on many different topics here on Wikipedia, and I'm certainly not a "Tolkiendil" dressing up and speaking elvish or anything of that sort, but we're off-topic here. You know my view of the barnstar, which is that it did not suit the purpose; nor, as you say, does the project have any great need of one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I went off topic. There is no hurry though for a WikiProject to take an award, but I think it would be nice to fill this gap, or at least for now, place it @WP:BARN since this project doesn't have a barnstar. Like I said, there's no limit to add awards for a WikiProject. Some editors might prefer this over other available options. That's why I wanted to add this here also instead of just WP:BARN alone. Jerm (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
As you said already. I certainly agree there's no hurry whatsoever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

there was one in use about 10 years ago that used the Tolkien star image.

Lava Lamps (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

actually it’s still on the project page. Been a while lol Lava Lamps (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lava Lamps: It’s been restored. Jerm (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jerm: Maybe you could combine the one ring and the old star of Fëanor that has been used as an award before? This would make a nice reference to the key events of Arda. And I agree with Chiswick Chap that the Original Barnstar is not suited for the Middle-earth project. De728631 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@De728631: I can do that, and add it to a different template. Likewise, @Chiswick Chap: If you can upload a high quality clip art (png/svg) of Star of Eärendil with no copyright concerns, I can create the award you previously asked for. Jerm (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Much energy has been spent on this, but we have no requirement for any such barnstar; the little TolkienStar.png would be fine if we were to need one. Frankly, many things on Wikipedia, and this project too, need much work: this doesn't. Let's get on with something else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Gandalf and fictional elderly characters

There is a discussion about whether or not Category:Fictional elderly characters belongs at Gandalf. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Gandalf#"Fictional elderly character". Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirects

Well, the deleting/redirecting/merging of articles seems to have ended. Now, it's up to the remaining active members of the project to determine how to handle the remaining content. One area that's been a bit overlooked is that of redirects. With all of the pruning, there's a lot of redirects pointing to bad targets, and other redirects that are about information that no longer exists anywhere. I've created a replication of the category tree for Category:Middle-earth redirects, with an indication of how many redirects are in each category. I think it's time to go through all of these, and retarget the ones that point to the wrong places, add information for ones that are useful but don't have mentions, and nominate the ones that aren't useful for deletion. I dearly hope some project members will be willing to help me with this, as there are many. Another thing to keep in mind is redirect categorization: Redirects that don't redirect to lists shouldn't be in the category of redirects to lists, and Bob (Middle-earth) shouldn't be marked as a redirect for possibilities, because despite how much they loved him in Bree, there's no way Bob is notable. Please help, I'll be marking categories I've gone through as done. I've got the category tree at User:Hog Farm/M-E redirects. Hog Farm Bacon 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I will jump in and look at a few. I’m not very good at the large edits but I can do admin and deletion requests. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, redirects are cheap, and when they point to a definite target even if rarely used they should be kept. Thus "Marmaduke Brandybuck" should indeed point to Merry B., and if we need to add his odd name there, then let's do that; same for all similar instances: Tolkien invented a lot of synonyms. There are probably other types of redirect that can similarly be cheaply and usefully kept. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"For the book from which it was adapted, see..."?

The three articles for the Peter Jackson LotR films currently have this wording in their disambiguation headers, but it seems somewhat problematic The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King given that something like a third (?) of its run-time is actually devoted to adapting plotlines that appear at the ends of books III and IV. I would just boldly change it to say "For the book, see..." and see what happens, but given that the other two articles use the exact same wording (and I don't really have a problem with them), I suspect this might have been discussed somewhere before and changing it might step on some toes -- what do others think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In the case of ROTK, losing the "from which it was adapted" seems reasonable, in which case we might as well drop it from the other two as it's at best unnecessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, agree with Chiswick Chap here. Generally, the simpler the hatnote, the better. Hog Farm Bacon 15:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects to Sindarin-language terms

I'm struggling to understand the utility behind Category:Redirects to Sindarin-language terms. We've got categories for redirects from Quenya and Sindarin language terms, which makes sense because we're categorizing by what language the redirect is in. But I'm not understanding what exact categorization aid categorizing redirects to Sindarin terms really accomplishes. It's also marked as a maintenance category, which truly makes no sense whatsoever. Any ideas on what utility this category is designed to serve? Hog Farm Bacon 15:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess it tells us (the previous occupants of our current Thrones of the Most Honourable Lords and Stewards of Middle-earth having long ago flown their nests) that these things point at articles that have or had Sindarin names, something that basically shouldn't now ever happen.
There is one instance which seems to need fixing, Palantír should move to Palantir (without diacritic). Fortunately both names are within the Middle-earth purlieu, so it's just a matter of a Requested Move. I've just asked for a dozen moves on WP:Yoga so maybe you could ask for this one! After that, the category can be deleted, I'd say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I've posted the rm template on the talk page; it should get bot transferred to the RM listing soon. I've requested it as potential controversial, as this isn't a purely technical matter, and my rationale is a little clunky. Hog Farm Bacon 15:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Armorial

I am constructing an armorial page for the heraldic devices relating. I have made a few already for real people's coats of arms but this is my first attempt for fictional characters. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. What is needed is first of all proof that Tolkien conceived of all these entities as having heraldic devices. I see you've done this for a couple of cases; we need the same for all of them, and especially we need a couple of reliable non-Tolkien sources for the topic as a whole to protect it from deletion. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, unless it can be demonstrated that this is a topic discussed in secondary sources, it doesn't seem that it'll last very long. Hog Farm Bacon 01:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
This looks useful, @Robin S. Taylor:, if you can't access it, I can try to take a look at incorporating some of the secondary content there. I see a few other gScholar hits that suggests this is a notable topic. Hog Farm Bacon 01:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Same paper on SWOSU, freely accessible. I've added it and Purdy 1982 (also free) to the draft, with a few words of introduction; you can certainly make more use of both articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

FAR Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

I have nominated The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Music

I've drafted a small article on the Music of Middle-earth; much scope for enlargement, feel free to join in.

One of its subsections has as "Main" article "Music of The Lord of the Rings film series", which is 164,000 bytes long and consists in large part of detailed uncited descriptions of each of the over 100 themes in Howard Shore's score. Scholarly analysis is mostly lacking. Any help or suggestions as to how to improve the article would be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Top redirects

I think the time may have come to consider if some of the Middle-earth redirects should not be proper articles. The top dozen (ignoring close synonyms) are:

It is striking that this list consists almost entirely of characters, perhaps reflecting film and game audience preferences. Do project members think some of these should have their own articles? The matter depends, obviously, on the existence of suitably reliable independent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As far as I am aware, global consensus for the line in the sand as to whether fictional characters should get standalone articles on Wikipedia is whether there is significant coverage about them in multiple independent reliable sources, or WP:GNG. My experience from being active in the WP:VG space (where there are multiple video game enthusiast editors who interpret and enforce WP:GNG stringently) and dealing with deletionist-minded editors at AfD's, is that some of them also demand that the sources demonstrate "real world notability", or that the characters must be notable outside of the works they appear in; factually, neither viewpoint is explicitly supported by site policy or existing community-vetted guidelines. My thoughts on each individual topic are as follows:
  • Eru Iluvatar: Yes, absolutely. I don't see any reception or analysis info on the cosmology article it redirects to at first glance, and it's no secret that Tolkien's religious piety permeates his writing. It was unilaterally merged after a discussion which lacked participation, primarily out of a desire to cut down the quantity of Tolkien-related articles to some set quota without evidence of any proper due diligence done to see whether there are secondary sources which could sustain a standalone article. I can see quite a few just from a quick cursory search on Google Scholar, so I expect to also see the character covered in more pop culture oriented sources.
  • Celeborn: A tough one. He is eminently recognizable because he actually appears in the narrative as opposed to being relegated to background lore, but there really isn't much in-universe wise to distinguish him from the other male elf characters, and secondary sources certainly discuss the fact that he clearly takes a backseat to Galadriel. Technically, he probably best belong in a list, but other editors in AfD's seem to be against including characters with no standalone articles in the List of Middle-earth characters article. I agree with the view expressed in the AfD for Celeborn that since the character is likely to appear in the upcoming Amazon TV series, more coverage from reliable sources should turn up eventually. Until then, and because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, more prose devoted to the developmental process behind the divergent backstories for him and his wife (and there is much to write about) can be expanded in Galadriel's article under a creation and conception section which it currently lacks (PS: I wonder if there are any sources which compare him and Galadriel to the Two Trees of Valinor in terms of theme?).
  • Celebrimbor: Absolutely. In fact, I see that it was never nominated for AfD or proposed for merge by the same collective of deletionist editors. Rather, you redirected it to Rings of Power on the grounds that he is a minor background character, or rather OG Celebrimbor is. I have personally seen multiple sources from video game journalists which discuss the role a co-opted adaptation of the character plays in the narrative of the Shadows of Mordor/War series, and of course some of them are critiques about the extreme creative liberties the video game developers took with Tolkien lore, which may offend Tolkien purists but should be covered all the same. I'd say a proper article for this character should be similar to Thranduil, being a mix of developmental/reception info for the original source material and for his expanded role as the co-protagonist of a video game sub-series significant for being commercially and critically successful.
  • And he's significant in the Nodens connection also, so even "OG" types would see him as notable; do recall what an emergency it was a year ago, and the dozens of articles snatched from under deletionist noses to GA status. (It's hard to recall how a pandemic feels once it's over.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Minas Tirith can be covered in greater detail under Gondor. In fact, the Gondor article could do with an additional paragraph or two about Dol Amroth and Prince Imrahil (noteworthy for his alleged half-elf heritage which seem to contradict the author's own writings). I looked both up, and honestly the bare mentions in the target article doesn't adequately explain to the reader what or who they are.
  • Witch-king of Angmar: Could use a specific section in Nazgûl devoted to the character. There are plenty of secondary sources which specifically analyze the character's battle with Eowyn, or discuss the character's background i.e. Angmar.
  • Celebrian: Probably not. Barely any information about in Tolkien's writings, next to nothing for secondary sources. I am surprised that the redirect got a lot of hits.
  • Gil-galad: Previous AfD consensus is a redirect. Can't really argue against it since I haven't seen a lot of significant coverage in secondary sources, though like Celeborn I do expect the character to play a major role in the Amazon TV series. Covering him as a High King of the Noldor in the section under Noldor would have been good, but the Noldor article does not exist anymore either.
  • Fellowship of the Ring (characters): All three individual volumes of LOTR were actually subject to AfD's; some editors argued that there isn't enough content to differentiate it from the main LOTR article. Why not cover the concept of the Fellowship under the article of the same name, which is ostensibly about the book but there's no reason why it can't cover a related concept, which is the group itself?
  • Minas Morgul: Maybe expand the Nazgul article with a bit more info about the fortress. I can see a pattern here, the high volume of views likely from readers who are most familiar with the WB-published Middle-earth games as it is a major in-game location.
  • Dain II Ironfoot: The character's increased prominence can be traced directly to the Battle of Five Armies movie. Any developmental or reception info about the character's depiction can probably go into the movie's article.
  • Mouth of Sauron: I think the Mouth of Sauron is covered adequately in Battle of the Morannon. A great read by the way. Any further info about the character can go into the analysis section for that article or Sauron. I've also seen secondary sources discussing the Black Speech which mentions the character, so that kind of info could go into the article for the language.
  • Déagol: I see secondary sources which discuss Sméagol's killing of Déagol, and the reception/analysis section of the Gollum article doesn't currently cover that.
It's admittedly almost a wall of text from me, but I hope further constructive discussion by other editors would follow. Haleth (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, and let's hope so. Noldor too is an imaginable article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of full disclosure, I supported not having separate articles in the AFDs for Celeborn and Gil-galad (supporting redirecting Gil-galad to the Noldor article, which still existed at that point. Quick search for Eru Iluvatar, I also agree this figure is likely notable and has garnered coverage even outside Mythlore-type publications. Not familiar with the video games, but the Celebrimbor sources all appear to be in RS publications. From a quick search of mine, the Deagol coverage seems to all be in relation to Smeagol killing him. At least to me, if that's the case, it makes more since to just expand the Gollum article. Per WP:VICTIM, we often wouldn't have a standalone article for even a real person who is notable only for being killed. I pretty well agree with Haleth's explanations of these. Hog Farm Talk 14:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
All good thoughts. It seems to me that Celebrimbor with the sources named and the Nodens material will make a good solid article, and should be our top priority. Celeborn and Gil-galad will probably sail over the notability threshold once the new TV series airs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, you guys convinced me. Noldor checkY (article [re]created). Much to be done there, and redirects repointed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm busy today, but I'm willing to help out with any residual redirect stuff tomorrow morning. The redirects may be useful in determining if/what additional content needs added to the Noldor article. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and redirected whatever I could recall to be relevant, including several obscure aliases of Gil-galad which I didn't realize actually exist on Wikipedia. But do have a look and see what else I have missed when you are free. I am thinking...putting some reception/analysis info about the likes of Fingolfin in the article would be appropriate as well. Haleth (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
PS: It just occurred to me that there are speculative discussions by multiple pop culture websites about Celebrian's possible inclusion in the storyline of the Amazon TV series, which is plausible since she is already about 1000 years old by the time Celebrimbor becomes lord of Eregion, and a young Elrond as Gil-galad's lieutenant is likely to appear. That might explain the increase in interest. Haleth (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if she turns out to be Gal Gadot-sexy and sword-waving then I expect she'll have a super-long hyper-cited article[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] before very long... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

With Noldor and Sundering of the Elves restored, I think we have the key elements of the complex Elf-kindred story from The Silmarillion, and they dovetail well with themes like Decline and fall in Middle-earth. The Sundering article has much useful information but its structure as a bulleted list is both very in-universe and far from readable - all contributions to its improvement welcomed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ve done a lot of the redirects from the main Elf article into the Sundering article. Will look into the prose and help with CE when I have time later today. Haleth (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the scholarly sources for Déagol has led to a substantial expansion of Gollum#Analysis to include both the Cain/Abel/Grendel connections and the whole Wagnerian Ring thing, with so many parallels that one has to wonder what Mr T was up to denying it all. I agree with Haleth that Déagol is so tightly woven together with Sméagol/Gollum that there's no point making a separate article for him; but covering him better has certainly proven beneficial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


Title for article on film versus book

The article "The Lord of the Rings: film versus book" has been moved without discussion to "Differences between The Lord of the Rings book and film series". I have started a discussion on the most suitable title for the article on the talk page there. Project members and other editors are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not including portrayers/voice actors in infoboxes

I'm a bit confused here, and figured I'd come to the WikiProject rather than continuing my edits. On the pages for Celebrimbor and Galadriel, I added the actors who had portrayed them in video games and films. I was reverted, with the edit summaries saying that the articles were about the Tolkien book characters.

I'm struggling to understand how this is different from a character adapted to other mediums. For example, Rick Grimes is listed with both his comic and television appearances, and all actors who have portrayed him are listed despite him being a comic book character. Was there a discussion on this WikiProject I'm not privy to, because otherwise I'm not getting why we wouldn't list performers who portray characters in adaptations. Sock (tock talk) 19:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well you might consider Alice in Wonderland. She's a book character, and the books have been adapted for stage, film, TV and radio. So the article about Alice mentions at the end some of these adaptations, but the infobox is about the book character not the adaptations. Same with Tolkien's characters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to actors for a major media appearance of the character being listed on the infobox, but I am fine if not everyone agrees with my opinion. Could this be an issue of WP:DUE then, since characters like Alice, or Galadriel for that matter, have been played or portrayed by multiple actresses over the years? Also, since Rick Grimes originated as a comics character, and Sock brought it up as a non-contentious inclusion, perhaps Wikiproject Comics does not consider this an undue inclusion? Although I am unfamiliar with the guidelines on MOS for the different infoboxes, in this case, characters which originated from written literature. Could anyone with knowledge on this MOS issue share their thoughts? Haleth (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:DUE clearly applies; as Haleth says, multiple actors have portrayed many of Tolkien's characters over the years, on radio, in animated films, in television plays, in feature films, in (some very good) fan films, and in video games, whether by voice or in body, and it would not be sensible, appropriate, or DUE to try to list them in an infobox. I appreciate that large live-action films strike some people's imaginations, but the layering of multiple media is continuing, with new TV drama and animation upcoming, and no sign of an end to the stream of adaptations. Thus on the one hand the characters are Tolkien's, and we should focus on his creation; on the other hand, the characters are everybody's, and we should pay due attention to diversity. The portrayal of a character in a single director's work, on the other hand, falls awkwardly between these two stools, and it's hard to see how it could be appropriate to mention one but not others. Far better is to describe the genuine diversity in the articles, as has been done, and not to try to say too much in infoboxes, if indeed we need the things at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion

A user has proposed an article move at Talk:Beowulf in Middle-earth. Project members are invited to contribute their reasoned opinions there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Over here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round World version of the Silmarillion (2nd nomination) Salimfadhley (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive18&oldid=1097925275"