Wikipedia

Talk:Adaptations of The Hobbit

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page


edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:Hobbit adventure packaging.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposal

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

Given that this film hasn't started principal photography, MGM cannot find funding, and now del Toro has quit as director, I suggest this page be merged back into Adaptations of The Hobbit until it actually begins production. Even without the aforementioned problems, this page should not have existed as it violates WP:FUTFILM. Anthony (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • As a follow-up, since there is no discussion as of yet on this page, I will be moving to AfD this article and suggest a merge within a week, unless some discussion or action is taken. Anthony (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Generally I support the merger, but the 2010 article contains far too much material for it all to be integrated here without massive amounts of undue weight being placed on a film that might never get made. Davémon (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • I think that would be the main issue in the merger. Despite that fact that this adaptation may not be made, however, no other adaptation of The Hobbit has received such significant coverage. A great deal of summarization would be in order. Cliff smith talk 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • I understand the point about undue weight, but there's nothing to say we can't split it off if/when the movie gets made. Look at the section for the Avengers movie in Avengers (comics) in other media - half the article is about the upcoming film. There's a userspace draft for the film if/when that starts production (and it looks more hopeful than the Hobbit), but the fact remains that until they go before the lens, the article doesn't get made. Same principle applies here. Just because del Toro did all that work and now he's out, doesn't mean the article should've been made in the first place. Anthony (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I think that Anthony is right. WP:NFF suggests that a separate article is not appropriate. If there is enough coverage that people want to WP:IAR that's fine, but my view is that alot of what's in the spin-off article is rumours that can be fairly excised based on WP:NOTNEWS and that what's left would fit in okay. It will take up a good deal of space, but that's not automatically undue weight since it is one of the most notable of the adaptions and will certainly become the most notable if it gets made. If/when principle photography begins it will certainly need its own article but at the current time, I think that a merge is the best bet. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • I don't support a merger in this case. Even if the films get never made, this project has indeed received far enough coverage to WP:IAR, it is notable per se. And yes, putting the full film page into the Adaptions article would generate undue weight in my opinion, because I don't see too many details that may be removed. E.g. the entire "Direction" should be kept as is because it analyses the films vs. book aspect. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I support this merger. The film(s) seems to be stuck in development hell, and with no guarantee it's going to go ahead any time soon, it ought to be merged into the adaptations article for the time being. If that means the content here being cut down somewhat to avoid undue weight concerns, that's no bad thing; on the other hand, there is precedent in articles containing a great deal of content about films that never got made: check out Superman (film series)#Proposals for fifth film for an impressive example. Robofish (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Opposed. The information is generally well sourced and innapropriate to merge into a smaller article. I think that even if the project were to be entirely canceled, the article should still remain, due to its signifigant coverage. -Verdatum (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment. From what I can see a lot of the content is cited to "onering.net" which isn't an independent reliable source. Then there are several movie-rumour sites (like "aint it cool news") which exist purely to hype movies. Then there are all the citations for the content that doesn't directly relate to the Hobbit movie at all, but rather Peter Jacksons other projects. In summary I don't think the coverage all that significant, but just symptomatic of the internet being full of gossip! Davémon (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Like Eluchil404, I think that some of what's in The Hobbit (2012 film) could be excised in summarizing based on WP:NOTNEWS. I'm also in agreement with Robofish as far as this project being in development hell at the moment; and the Superman example of covering a film (or films) never made is proof that this proposed merger is completely possible. While Adaptations of The Hobbit is where The Hobbit (2012 film) should be merged, I think that incubating it would give it a chance for more refinement. If it gets made, the article can be moved out of the incubator and back into the article namespace. Cliff smith talk 22:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I support the widely held belief that primates and humans should be guaranteed the same basic rights under the United States Constitution. Let's face it. Planet of the Apes didn't seem like fun, so imagine how the primates feel now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.178.150 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose The development and production of this film is itself notable. Theleftorium (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The link for Robert Inglis, who reads the audiobooks, leads to a page about a Sir Robert Inglis who lived in the 18th century. I'm not sure how to fix this but I thought I'd at least leave a note here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.233.2 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorted. Deagol2 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Adaptations of The Hobbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adaptations of The Hobbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adaptations_of_The_Hobbit&oldid=1197992118"