Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atharaphelun (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 18 July 2020 (→Roll call). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:ME-Announce

Template:ME-taskbox

Shortcut
Archive
Archives

Past discussions and issuses can be located by clicking on the archive links.

Roll call

Please sign your name below and on the members page. Comments are optional.

Article alerts

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

Issues

Other specific issues regarding Tolkien-related Wikipedia content.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think Dol Amroth should redirect to Gondor where, frankly, it's a minor detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Either form is better than what they are currently at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
something like this [1] Lava Lamps (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • FWIW, I have now moved the two pages to Pippin Took and Merry Brandybuck respectively. De728631 (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added critical and scholarly sources to both articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Diannaa: @Moonriddengirl: @Money emoji: pinging some copyright administrators who would know. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As you said already. I certainly agree there's no hurry whatsoever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

actually it’s still on the project page. Been a while lol Lava Lamps (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lava Lamps: It’s been restored. Jerm (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth&oldid=968260687"