Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive19

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

Two Lamps aka Lamps of the Valar

Two Lamps redirects now to History of Arda (redirect created by User:Chiswick Chap). It and Lamps of the Valar (redirect needed?) previously redirected to List of Middle-earth objects which was then deleted. I am not sure if either had a dedicated article on English wikipedia. I did however notice that this topic has Featured level articles on French and Spanish Wikipedias (see wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q641238#sitelinks-wikipedia). I wonder if it its notable and could be (re?)created on English one? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It could. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap Any chance you plan on tackling this in the foreseeable future? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll think about it. The lamps are actually covered in some detail already, complete with map-diagrams, so I'd have to feel convinced we had enough extra to say not merely to repeat what is already in the History of Arda and other articles. The danger if we go too far without good reason is that a merge/delete campaign will start up again, and for my money, once was easily enough. So, it's strong, robustly-cited, scholarly articles or nothing. The Spanish article, for instance, is almost entirely primary-cited, which would be a clear deletion candidate over on this wiki. The French one has 4 secondary sources. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Redirect discussion for Fellowship of the Ring (characters)

The redirect Fellowship of the Ring (characters) is under discussion. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 13#Fellowship of the Ring (characters). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Roll call

Please sign your name below; if you stop being interested in editing here, please remove your name! Comments are optional.

Sundering of the Elves.

Sundering of the Elves is a DYK article today if anyone is interested. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Arda

Is [1] a RS? I don't think it was discussed at WP:RSN. It is one person's private project, over 20 years old, and received even a short academic review here (which actually means that the project might be notatable, if someone can find one more RS about it). Previous discussion here suggests that it's probably ok but redundant to referencing Tolkien directly, so I'd also assume that the fact that something is covered in Arda is not indicating notablity? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"probably ok but redundant to ... Tolkien" is I think broadly correct: the analysis at glyphweb is thorough and careful but not scholarly. I've removed it and replaced it where necessary with primary references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap Any thought if EoA red link above could redirect somewhere? Is there a place in our article space for an article about such reference works? Ditto for GlyphWeb, come to think if it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Well, they are basically fan expertise (GlyphWeb is a mirror of The Encyclopedia of Arda) and there are various places in the literature where Tolkien scholars have ruefully commented that if you talk to fans they quote you exact chapter and verse on every tiny primary fact! The scholars of course are interested in themes and influences rather than secondary-world history as such. I think the best bet will be Tolkien fandom#Online which is at least a decent home for such sites. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about notability

I've come across a lot of articles about fictional elements in LOTR and I have to say that very few of them have any sort of claim per the GNG that they are actually notable. For example:

  • The GNG asks for multiple reliable sources; this is usually taken to mean at least 3 such sources. All these articles reach that level. The question of whether to merge is a little different, as the issue is more whether the reliably-sourced material is sufficiently separate to be treated with stand-alone articles rather than included in wider descriptions; I'd question whether there are any mainstream (as opposed to adaptation) Tolkien articles that should actually be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Dol Guldur—mostly just plot, basically a paragraph of out-of-universe detail in the appearances section, no clear GNG passing.
  • Article has 17 secondary sources, a mix of scholarly sources (Nelson 2000, Rutledge 2004), popular sources such as game sites, Tolkien artists (Myth and Magic: The Art of John Howe, 2001), and Brian Sibley's 2013 movie book. Even so, further sources are clearly available: the 'Adaptations' section links and describes LOTRO: Shadows of Angmar as well as Jackson's films, both of which can certainly be sourced reliably. But I think we can sensibly merge to Mirkwood here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Barad-dûr—all just plot details except for a tiny mention of its depiction in the films, which doesn't demonstrate notability.
  • Reliable sources include Shippey 2005 in addition to the film material (which has two scholarly sources, Mathijs & Pomerance 2006, and Woodward & Kourelis 2006). I agree this is thin, and will merge this now to Mordor where it belongs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Lonely Mountain—the secondary sourcing here is to The Hobbit's themes, where the mountain itself is incidental.
  • No, the "Hobbit" sources are clearly identified as "Primary". On WikiProject Middle-earth, "Secondary" broadly means "Not Tolkien", as far as books are concerned; Tolkien's own writings are always included in the Primary list. The "Reception" sources are specifically about the Lonely Mountain, just as the "Adaptations" sources are, and the scholars discuss the symbolism of the mountain specifically. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
There are 12 secondary sources here, including 3 about adaptations, Fonstad's Atlas, 2 on astronomical objects named for the famous Tolkien mountain, and 6 scholarly sources (Matthews 1975, Lobdell 1975, Green 1980, Pearce 2012, Shippey 2005, and Harper 2006). I note an editor's comment on the talk page, that "It's only the most well-known place in Middle-earth: the focus of the Dwarves' quest throughout The Hobbit." That comment in itself doesn't touch the notability issue, but it's certainly a pointer that deletion or even merging would be a mistake, and the list of distinguished scholars should give a definite "keep" for this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm considering nominating these and others for deletion, but I'd welcome opinions on merge targets or other options first. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think deletion is appropriate for any of these; the quick analysis above suggests two merges and one keep. I've annotated the list accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree, there's sources for most of this. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forlong the Fat type stuff is long gone. Hog Farm Talk 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Erebor has a fairly detailed and well referenced reception section that should immediately dispel any notion of deletion / merger. For me Dol Guldor and Barad-dûr can be merged into Mirkwood and Mordor respectively. But I’m not too bothered if they stay and are expanded. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Since User:Chiswick Chap asked me to weight in (thanks!). All things considered, merger is always better than deletion, and if this can be achieved through discuss here, rather then the more contentious AfD, all is good. There may be some more articles that merit discussion, and as long as the feedback here is constructive and not biased, it's very good to do work on stuff here, or at least to report thigs first before AfD. As for LM, the Lonely_Mountain#Reception section, IMHO, is ok-ish. We still have zillion of articles about fictional entities, including a few (but not many) from Tolkienverse, that don't raise to that level of analysis. Here, we have scholars saying stuff about this entity, one could quibble if WP:SIGCOV is met (I didn't look at sources), but I'd worry to much about this article. On the surface, it looks, as I said, better than most of the stuff that ends up at AfD for fiction, and again, we have plenty of that worse stuff to go through. I always think it's best to work from the bottom up, and this is not bottom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think my issue is that SIGCOV isn't met. Merely mentioning these things in secondary sources versus significant coverage are very different things, as you well know. To take Dol Guldur, for example,[2] I don't see significant coverage in any of the secondary sources (and the grouping itself and Chiswick above misuse or misunderstand "secondary", as an official movie guide for example is a primary source not secondary.) The articles I highlighted here were simply from following one article to another and noting issues; I'm more than happy to systematically go through articles but that was not my intention. I think the fact that people quickly agreed these probably needed to get merged is enough of an indication that this stuff should get checked over more thoroughly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You’re straying dangerously close to failing WP:NPA when insinuating contributors are “misusing” secondary sources, adding the “or misunderstanding” is not good enough. A quick glance at the secondary sources on Dol Guldor shows none of them are “official movie guides”. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

As an administrator it’s actually unforgivable and unbecoming of your position. You’ve made a claim that isn’t true please withdraw and clarify you’re not accusing good faith editors of gaming the system. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

...So you're saying this book, officially released as a companion to the film, is an independent source per WP:PSTS? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s arguably a secondary source on Dol Guldor as it’s once removed from the original work yes. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And you still haven’t withdrawn your WP:NPA agains Chiswick. Until you do, I will not respond any further to your comments. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Tolkien and race

There is a discussion at Talk:Tolkien and race on whether the article is neutral. Project members are invited to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Adaptations of Middle-earth

There is a discussion at Talk:Adaptations of Middle-earth on what the article called until recently Middle-earth in film should be called, given that it encompasses film, television, and streaming, but no other adaptations. Project members are invited to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Naming of weapons in Middle-earth

There is a discussion at Talk:Middle-earth weapons and armour on whether Naming of weapons in Middle-earth, a Good Article since 2020, should be merged into Middle-earth weapons and armour, a list article. Project members are invited to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Orc

There is a discussion at Talk:Orc about the right word to cover the use of the term "Orc" in modern conflicts. Project members are invited to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Bree, Middle-earth

There is a discussion at Talk:Bree, Middle-earth about whether the article should be redirected to The Shire#Bree where the place is described and illustrated. Project members are invited to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Gollum, the Turkish President, and civil rights

There is a discussion at Talk:Gollum about how much (if any) coverage the Gollum article should have of alleged insults to the Turkish President involving a Gollum image, and of legal action and campaigning in other countries about the resulting imprisonments and civil rights in Turkey. Project members are invited to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Northern courage in Middle-earth

There is a discussion at Talk:Northern courage in Middle-earth about whether this article should be radically revised, following comments by an IP editor and a declined PROD. Project members are invited to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition of species named after Sauron to that article and to the list of such things

There is an discussion at Talk:Sauron about whether a number of species named after the character should be listed in the article as well as in List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works. Project members are invited to contribute to the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Names of eras in History of Arda

An editor is repeatedly changing the Names of eras such as "Years of the Lamps" in History of Arda. A discussion is ongoing at Talk:History of Arda, to which project members are invited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Closure needed at Talk:Orc

A split discussion on this page needs an uninvolved editor (I believe) to close the proposal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Addition of plot/content detail to The Return of the King

A discussion has been started at Talk:The Return of the King on the addition of plot/content detail to the associated article. WikiProject members and other editors are invited to contribute their views. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien and JW Dunne

More eyes would be appreciated at Time in J. R. R. Tolkien's fiction#Time in different dimensions. There is an increasingly contentious discussion about it at Talk:Time in J. R. R. Tolkien's fiction#Time in different dimensions and we are in danger of an edit warrior going too far. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

All that is needed is for folks to acknowledge that an author's output is different from their inputs. If an editor is muddled about that, a little quiet reflection should sort it out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cirith Ungol (band)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cirith Ungol (band). Edward-Woodrow • talk 14:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Black Breath (band)

There is a requested move for the article on the music band named "Black Breath" to be renamed without the disambiguating "(band)", leaving no redirect to Nazgûl. Project members are invited to join the discussion.

This notice has been posted after premature closure of the discussion (on discovery that this WikiProject had not been notified as an interested party). The discussion has been reopened. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources on Tolkien's Lindon and Himring

I wanted to write separate articles about Himring and Lindon Tolkien, but I couldn’t find independent authoritative sources on them - could you tell me if there are such sources? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for asking. I think you won't find anything substantial enough to justify separate articles really. There would need to be scholarly sources which draw out themes such as Classical influences specifically from these places, and unlike, say, Númenor or Gondor, it's not clear that Tolkien invested much energy in them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


The Fellowship of the King

Notable, or too ONEVENTish? Probably worth a redirect and a mention in some place (Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien?). Sample RS (The Guardian). Some earlier coverage of when the suits started: [3], [4]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Ping @Cunard - I can't find any reviews of this book, but maybe you will have better luck. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus (talk · contribs). All of the coverage I found was related to the lawsuit. I did not find any book reviews. I agree that a mention in Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien is the best approach for now. The lawsuit was filed at the beginning of 2023 and the judged ruled on the lawsuit at the end of 2023. If the lawsuit receives continued coverage a few months later, the lawsuit would have received continued coverage and would be considered notable. If that happens, I recommend creating an article focused on the lawsuit rather than the book. Cunard (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Ping @Chiswick Chap - do you agree we should mention it briefly there? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
A brief mention in 'Works inspired...' seems right to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Revised and expanded Letters in new ME-ref template

Project members will know that HarperCollins have brought out a new edition of Tolkien's Letters. Articles have up to now used {{harvnb|Carpenter|1981}} to reference letters. There is now a new template, Template:ME-ref/Letters23, which will be cited using {{harvnb|Carpenter|2023}}.

The good news is that, with one exception, all the "old" letters have the same numbers in the two editions; and that the "new" letters are numbered to avoid conflicts, e.g. #140c to sit between #140 and #141.

The procedure for updating an article is explained at Template_talk:ME-ref/Letters#Update procedure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Why should there be two separate templates/references for essentially the same thing? As you note, the letter numbers are consistent. Thus, even someone with the 1981 edition who wants to cite letter #87 could easily use a template giving the details of the 2023 edition... because the letter in question is still #87 there. Splitting the editions referenced this way will lead to madness if applied to the dozens (hundreds in some cases) of editions of various other Tolkien texts. Even in this single instance it is an unnecessary complication. --CBD 15:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Because the dates are not the same: and there is a kerfuffle, too, with letters #219 and #220 which are swapped over, hence update steps 3 and 4. It may be helpful to note, as mentioned in the first paragraph here, that the date forms part of the Harvard link to the templated source. If you're happy to do a global replace according to the now-documented update procedure, which has 4 steps, then we can cheerfully ditch Carpenter 1981. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. Any thoughts on whether we should have all the 'ME-cite' templates I used subst'd? That can be done easily via bot by just changing a parameter on the /doc page. Just not sure about current preferences. The original ME-cite templates, which were deleted somewhere along the way, were designed to be subst'd because there used to be 'concerns' about 'double transclusion', but these days there are numerous templates that are nested six levels deep. --CBD 22:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Not at all sure about substing or not, implications are unclear and very possibly extremely unwelcome, don't know. Nor at all happy with using ME-cite, especially as from now on ME-ref/Letters is once again perfectly up to date and can be used normally. This looks like a major and systemic change and its implications should have been thoroughly explored and agreed first. I suspect that at the moment, nobody knows how to go about using the new approach, and that includes you (subst or not? etc) and me.
 
I note there is an overlooked (1981 presumably) page ref in Helm's Deep, perhaps there are others - people may have added these in multiple ref formats long ago. There is another ref in that article which just provides a number, no # and no text: it might be an uncompleted letter ref or a 1981 page number. Maybe there are more of those in other articles too. These need to be changed to full letter citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
FYI: SUBST does not work within <ref></ref> tags. -- Verbarson  talkedits 11:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear. Well, then we either have to have the ME-cites as they are or replace all of them with harvnb|Carpenter|2023 etc. On the Helm's Deep ref [T4], "210" is certainly #210 to Forrest J. Ackerman, June 1958: I haven't edited the ref. Any other page refs surviving from the Elder Days will similarly have to be looked up and replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Let's see;
  • The substitution will work just fine, as shown here . I change a 'no' to a 'yes' in one spot and the bot will do the rest.
  • No, not a "major and systemic" change, and indeed entirely transitory if that is what people want. This IS the discussion to agree how to go forward. Either we subst all of the ME-cite/LETTERS templates I created to harvnb|Carpenter|2023 and then continue using harvnb (and various other templates / manual references) going forward... exactly as people have been the past several years OR we revive ME-cite (or fold the functionality into ME-ref), which was part of the original design of this system precisely to standardize reference formats and make edition transitions like this easier. That was all removed without being "thoroughly explored and agreed first".
  • The Helm's Deep ref says 210 because that's what it said before the 'change'.
  • I didn't notice that the other Helm's Deep ref listed the page # after the letter number. Would probably be fine since the letter number is there, but I removed the page #. --CBD 13:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of non-free illustrations in Illustrating Tolkien

A discussion has begun at Talk:Illustrating Tolkien on the use of non-free illustrations in the Illustrating Tolkien. Middle-earth project members are invited to contribute to the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A modern perspective on Rings of Power

A discussion has begun at Talk:Rings of Power#A modern perspective on whether Sauron's efforts to enslave the bearers of the Rings of Power owe something to Tolkien's experience of cryptanalysis. A text, formerly in the article, is now on the talk page. Project members are invited to decide if it should be included as it is or modified, and if so, where it should go in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

A discussion has begun at AfD as to whether List of translations of The Lord of the Rings should remain as an article on Wikipedia.

Project members are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of translations of The Lord of the Rings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film)

I have started a requested move discussion for this article, which was recently given unnecessary disambiguation following the announcement of an upcoming film that may potentially have a similar name. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of deletions at Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings

A discussion has been started after an editor has made a series of deletions in this article, which may have removed needed components of the text. Project members are invited to view the changes in the article and contribute their views to the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Tolkien and race

A discussion has been started by an editor on this article's talk page about its neutrality. Project members are invited to join the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I have added this project to the list that is processed every Tuesday by CleanupWorklistBot. The latest listings are available as alphabetical or categorized lists, or as a downloadable CSV file. A history will accumulate. On the first run, it has flagged 186 (16%) of the project's 1175 pages (articles, redirects, disambiguations) as needing attention. -- Verbarson  talkedits 21:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Legends of Tomorrow episodes

So the actor Jack Turner appears in the Legends of Tomorrow episodes The Fellowship of the Spear and Aruba as Tolkien in a guest star role? Would either of these be worth adding to to the task force? The first one exists as a redirect but the second is an article I'm hoping to refine. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The answer here is surely no, any connection is marginal and tenuous at best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Sorry I clarified a the reason a bit, but presumably still the same? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Can't forget the brilliant episode "Guest Starring John Noble" haha - adamstom97 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power episodes

Can I suggest/request that all articles about episodes of The Rings of Power be titled

  • <Episode name> (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power)

for consistency and to aid recognition of the subject? An article entitled Udûn should be about Udûn; a TV show episode should be labelled more clearly. This would currently affect A Shadow of the Past, Partings and Udûn, and bring them into line with the other five episode articles. This should apply to all future seasons, once episode names are known. -- Verbarson  talkedits 15:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    • I have <extremely> little interest in TV episodes, but I wonder if it can be standard practice to name episodes by topic rather than by series? It could well be that "series.episode" would be the preferred naming convention, useful from the direction of knowing the series (or directors or actors), and it may well be the norm for that reason. The other thing that springs to mind is what happens when there is more than one topic? So "The Great Wave" brings to mind "Cataclysms", "Númenor", and "Recurring Dreams" (Tolkien had the Great Wave dream/vision many times). Lots of redirects? and then which one becomes the title, hmm? And what if a title is chosen for its obscurity to maintain suspense, rather than for its content? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
      The current article names are correct per WP:NCTV. The title of the episode is used where there is no other article of that name, otherwise they are disambiguated with the series' name. We don't add unnecessary disambiguation just for consistency across episode articles of the same series. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
      Granted; but the primary topic for Udûn is clearly Udûn, Mordor, not The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power S01E06. I think this is a case where the function of the encyclopedia is improved by breaking the rules a little. [Edited to link to policy, not joke] -- Verbarson  talkedits 19:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
      We can have a move discussion about that specific example. There was already a bit of back-and-forth about it last year as the episode was originally at Udûn (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) before it was moved to Udûn. I think if there was going to be any change it would make sense to redirect Udûn to the disambiguation page at Udun. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about this more, I have come around to the changes that Verbarson suggested above though not necessarily for the same reasons. I have gone ahead and started move requests for each of the articles, please feel free to contribute. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Images in infoboxes

Hello! I just wanted to offer some friendly feedback. I understand there's a consensus to not put images of Tolkien characters in the infobox (unless they were drawn by Tolkien), because it would give undue weight to the adaptation the image comes from. I get where this is coming from, but in my humble opinion, it makes the pages look uninteresting and it doesn't inspire me to read them. That's all, just my two cents. Have a great day! Wafflewombat (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's one of many pressures on Wikipedia, but the key one must be to be encyclopedic in tone; that includes looking like an encyclopedia, not like a fan-site. Another consideration is the variety of audiences we have to cater to, which span ages "8 to 80", book and film: and inevitably, fan fiction, slash stories, and fan art must come quite low down the list of materials discussed or cited, not least as little of it can be treated as reliable in Wikipedia's terms. Encyclopedias cannot hope to be "inspiring" reading; they aspire rather to accuracy, reliability, and informativeness, though we may hope that when they provide as detailed a coverage of a topic as we do here on WikiProject Middle-earth, some readers may be inspired to read more and to reflect on the accomplishments described. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive19&oldid=1239738379"