Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth

Latest comment: 7 days ago by Chiswick Chap in topic Use of non-free illustrations in Illustrating Tolkien
WikiProject iconMiddle-earth Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Article alerts edit

The following list is updated daily by a bot. Please use the "Issues" section below for manual entries.

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Good article nominees

(3 more...)


Issues edit

Other specific issues regarding Tolkien-related Wikipedia content.


Closure needed at Talk:Orc edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Tolkien and JW Dunne edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cirith Ungol (band) edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cirith Ungol (band). Edward-Woodrowtalk 14:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Black Breath (band) edit

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)Reply[reply]

Sources on Tolkien's Lindon and Himring edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The Fellowship of the King edit

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: [1], [2]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
A brief mention in 'Works inspired...' seems right to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revised and expanded Letters in new ME-ref template edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
FYI: SUBST does not work within <ref></ref> tags. -- Verbarson  talkedits 11:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • Ok, well, I'd like to have harvnb|Carpenter|2023 please. I'll fix the HD ref now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seeing no objections... done. --CBD 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of non-free illustrations in Illustrating Tolkien edit

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)Reply[reply]