Revision as of 04:53, 18 June 2024 editChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,829 edits →Legends of Tomorrow episodes: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:11, 18 June 2024 edit undoOlifanofmrTennant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,434 edits →Legends of Tomorrow episodesNext edit → | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
== Legends of Tomorrow episodes == | == Legends of Tomorrow episodes == | ||
So the actor Jack Turner appears in the ] episodes The Fellowship of the Spear and ] as a guest star? 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. <b>] ] ]</b> 02:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | So the actor Jack Turner appears in the ] episodes The Fellowship of the Spear and ] 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. <b>] ] ]</b> 02:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
:Thanks for asking. The answer here is surely no, any connection is marginal and tenuous at best. ] (]) 04:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | :Thanks for asking. The answer here is surely no, any connection is marginal and tenuous at best. ] (]) 04:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
::{{Ping|Chiswick Chap}} Sorry I clarified a the reason a bit, but presumably still the same? <b>] ] ]</b> 05:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:11, 18 June 2024
This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
| Shortcut |
Middle-earth Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Archives | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Article alerts
The following list is updated daily by a bot. Please use the "Issues" section below for manual entries.
Categories for discussion
- 07 Jan 2025 – Category:Númenor (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Jontesta (t · c); see discussion
Redirects for discussion
- 12 Jan 2025 – Tolkienesque (talk · edit · hist) →The Lord of the Rings was RfDed by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 15 Jan 2025 – Westron (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion
- 15 Jan 2025 – The Collected Poems of J.R.R. Tolkien (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion
- 07 Jan 2025 – Hell and Middle-earth (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion
- 24 Oct 2024 – The Hunt for Gollum (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion
- 07 Jan 2025 – The Return of the King (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c) was promoted by Prhartcom (t · c), see discussion
Issues
Other specific issues regarding Tolkien-related Misplaced Pages content.
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: , . 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 edits 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 , "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)
- 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)
- Seeing no objections... done. --CBD 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Let's see;
- 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 , "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)
- FYI: SUBST does not work within <ref></ref> tags. -- Verbarson edits 11:00, 6 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)
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages.
Project members are invited to contribute to the discussion at Misplaced Pages: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 edits 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)