Talk:Middle-earth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The last entry in the revision history for this talk: is dated October 2, 2002. That's almost seven months ago. How about we just delete the whole kit and caboodle and start talk:ing from scratch? Smack 03:50 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Done and done. john 06:16 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Ah. Stan just got done telling me to copy and paste it into an archive file.

Suggestions

I have a few suggestions to make.

First of all, I want to organize the Characters list by Race. Of course, there would be a category for beings of dubious or uncertain race, such as the Nazgûl, but I think it would be useful.

Second, I want to create a page called Chronology of Middle-earth or something to that effect (to distinguish it from the History of Middle-earth, which is a book). I'm not entirely sure what it would hold, because it does seem reasonable to have five separate pages for the Years of the Trees and the four Ages, but I'm sure we can come up with something.

Also, for someone who really, truly knows what's going on - is there such a thing as the Years of the Lamps, or is that time of history considered unimportant?

Try searching for "timeline" - there seem to be lots of articles that have it, either as separate articles or as sections. Or you could be stylish and call it "Tale of Years" :-) (but no, "timeline" is encyclopedically humorless). And there are "Years of the Lamps" but basically no info on how long it lasted (the absence of sun and moon making it difficult to tell time!) Stan 07:43 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm currently working on User:Itai/Middle-earth timeline -Itai 20:57, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now finished, at Timeline of Arda. -Itai 17:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, about the racial discrimination in the list of characters ;), a separate sub-list for half-elves, or put Elros with Men and Elrond with Elves? And what of Eärendil, if so? -- John Owens 07:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I think that the Half-elven should be listed with the races that they chose to belong to, with a little note that they are Half-elven. Eärendil seems to have opted for the Elder Kindred - he's still alive, isn't he?

Just a quick note - the Nazgûl are not of an uncertain race. They're as human as the rest of us, saving Elves and the like. -Itai 04:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ah, Tolkien fans... ;)

OK, I have my copy of the Tolkien companion, and it's got dozens of pages just of history and timelines... let me dig up the ISBN so you can go grab a copy...

Crud, I lent it to a friend. Give me a few hours, I'll get you the ISBN number. This is official straight up stuff from Tolkien's notes and so forth, so it's reliable as a source. --Dante Alighieri 20:51 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Here's something interesting, it's almost like the Wikipedia, but it's for Middle-Earth: Encyclopedia of Arda. Also, the name of my book is Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia by David Day. I have the hardcover, but it's available in paperback (ISBN 1857323467). --Dante Alighieri 09:11 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Arda is an excellent resource (even if I've had lengthy debates with its creator on one or two points). On the other hand, pretty much none of David Day's books about Tolkien are trustworthy (not surprising, since most of them are almost the same); see my discussion of his books for more information. -- Steuard 05:31, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the "competition" that Wikipedia should improve upon. When I add to a Wikipedia Tolkien article, I try to make sure that it has more and better detail than EoA. Now, how to get atmospheric backgrounds for just the Tolkien articles in Wikipedia?... 1/2 :-) Stan 13:24 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The difference between EoA and Wikipedia is that EoA is not a wiki. I think that we have at least as much information as EoA, even if that's just because we draw from more sources that contradict each other. Smack

Umm, you do know that there is a specifically Tolkien Wikipedia, right? http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/ It's an old version of the software, though; for instance, I can't seem to get it to accept my identity more than one session at a time. :p But it is Wiki, unlike the above. -- John Owens 09:11 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, I didn't know about it! I looked at it a bit - seems more concentrated on arcane points than anybody would want for a general encyclopedia, for instance by the extensive use of lengthy quotes. Stan 12:56 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And it's much, much too small to do that. Gotta have the basics covered before you can start talking about whether Balrogs have wings (EoA). Smack

Listings off the main page

It seems a bit unreasonable to include extremely lengthy but woefully incomplete listings of people, places, and things all on the main Middle-earth page. There are already separate pages for characters and other subsets of this information; why not simply move all of this content there? -- Steuard 06:43, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

After having added quite many entries to the Places section, I tend to agree... having these lengthy lists moved to subpages would be a good thing, for many reasons. -- Jhi 17:49, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Right on. Every section from Cosmology forward should, in my humble opinion, be moved to a page of its own (possibly except for Games, which, while being of lesser importance than all others - as far as a purist is concerned - contains content often found in other articles, and is anyhow of greater importance to the passing observer), with the M-e article providing nothing but references. The goal, inasmuch as I'm concerned, is to beat the US Census data in the number of articles. (Edoras - population: 18244 (124 Fourth Age census)...)-- Itai 17:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Races of Men

The list of the races of men — largely due to my intervention — is a mess. I'm not quite sure the separation of men into presumed Edain and Northmen is as accurate as some articles make it out to be. All too often one finds a group of people that fits into both categories. Oh well. -Itai 05:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another thought. It could be that the so-called "Races of Men" should be split into "Races of Men" and "Nations of Men". A "Nations of Elves" and a "Nations of Dwarves" lists may also be of interest. It would appear to be that the only considerate people of Middle-earth are the hobbits. -Itai 18:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Using 'Nations' would remove the 'general classifying terms' such as 'Calaquendi', 'Middle Men', etc., and that would be a shame I think. Perhaps 'Men' should be replaced with 'Mannish Peoples'? Take a look at my most recent edit, I've added another 'classifier' (Atanatari), so both Edain and Northmen are now clearly of one people. I think maybe a table to show a more advanced 'family tree' may be best, but I'd first need to draw it out on paper. I'll see what I can do here. — Jor 14:30, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Separate Wiki?

Has anyone considered creating a separate Wiki for the Middle-earth fictional universe? Though I'm not necessarily suggesting getting rid of content here. It could rival the Encyclopedia of Arda, especially as that's not extensible under GNU FDL... —Ashley Y 04:46, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, as the external links in this article mention, there's TolkienWiki. BTW, much of the material in WP already surpasses EoA for depth. Stan 05:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The TolkienWiki is using a different approach than EoA and WP: there you'll find long quotes from the material with then discussion on what this means. WP (and EoA) use a more encyclopedic approach. In my view the latter is the better approach. (That, and I don't like the wiki software used at the TW) — Jor 12:09, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Midgard

I do not like how this article looks now. I appreciate the efford to write about norse mythology and it's relation to Tolkien's works, but I think we should keep two different articles on Middle-earth = Midgard and Tolkiens Middle-earth. An article about both will be too long, and it won't do justice to either topic. I'm sure you can and should write just as much about Middle-earth = Midgard as about the Tolkien stuff, and that would make for an almost unreadable article. If you really think it necessary that Middle-earth must point to both then it needs to be turned into a disambig page. But the argument against this is that fixing all the links would be a horrible job. I suggest putting most of the norse stuff here back to Midgard (currently a redirrect pointing here). I think it would be enough to put a reference to Midgard in the first line of the existing middle-earth article so that folks will find the correct page. But please don't simply revert that anon users changes because he did good work. Lady Tenar 16:54, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. All this article needs is a short note that Tolkien's Middle-earth is related to the term Midgard, and all the Midgard stuff can go there.Jor 16:57, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I concur, inasmuch as contents relating to Midgard should be moved to the corresponding entry. A more interesting question - one that I've seen discussed, although I can't at the moment remember where - is whether Middle-earth should serve as the main Tolkien fiction article, as it does now. For my part, I am (as always) perfectly content to leave things as they are. This philosophy of mine also applies to killer Mars fungi and the less dangerous evil, mad tyrants. -Itai 17:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention appears to be to add (Middle-earth) at the end of article names where needed to disambiguate between Tolkien's and other (Gimli vs Gimli (Middle-earth) for example), so Middle-earth as the main article makes sense. If only because use of the term is almost always referring to Tolkien's work—the medieval use is very rare. Jor 17:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Right, didn't think about that. Seems reasonable enough. -Itai 17:44, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I made the split of Midgard and Middle-earth. I think the Cynewulf quote, while attributed to Tolkien, better belongs there than here: this article should contain info only about Tolkien's continent of Arda. But feel free to disagree ;) Jor 17:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tanks Jor. Now that i'm back from dinner i'll do something about currently nonexistent Midgard(role-playing game) article and fix the false links to Midgard meaning this. Btw most stuff here about norse mythology is a mess that needs lots of work, but this is the wrong place to discuss this. Wikipedia is driving me slowly insane. I think the Cynewulf/Beowulf stuff should be in the Tolkien article, and may be in shorter form in the Midgard article also (little duplications don't hurt, i think). In fact that's of more interest to a Tolkien fan than to someone researching norse myths, i think. i'll do this later if no one disagrees strongly. Lady Tenar 18:24, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am the anon user who merged Midgard and Middle-earth. I have read the comments for splitting them, and I agree. In fact, I think both articles are better now than they were before.

Welcome to the wikipedia! so your contibution did something very good! thanks for adding good content and kicking me in the a** to work on the matter. Thats what i love about the wikipedia: The work of many individuals creates something that is bigger than what any one alone could do. I really don't want to step on your toes, but have you thought about getting a user name? It's anonymous and easy, simply click on log in and follow instructions. All you have to provide is a user name and a password. It does make communicating easier, and your ip is no longer broadcasted to everyone. Lady Tenar 18:58, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I've done so. Yes, Wikipedia is great! When at its best it achieves more than a work of reference in collecting knowledge from more sources than any single scholar is able to. I have taken the liberty of compacting the discussion of the relationship between Midgard and Middle-earth.Wiglaf

Links to TolkienWiki and EoA

Why don't we add links to TW and EoA articles for each Middle-earth entry in Wikipedia in the External Links section (just like there are links to Memory Alpha articles under Star Trek entries? It requires some work, but it's doable :) Ausir 22:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, TW isn't too impressing at the moment, but EoA is simply amazing. This could be done, although I'm not sure whether a change-them-all-at-once policy fits this best, on account of requiring extra work. Links could be added sporadically, whenever one chances upon a Middle-earth article. (Incidentally, I don't know if there is a Wikipedia precedent for such comprehensive external-linking.) -- Itai 23:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of Star Trek articles with links to Memory Alpha, but they aren't as numerous as Middle-earth articles. Ausir 23:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's that much value in EoA links; at this point, I think Wikipedia's articles generally meet or exceed EoA coverage and quality. If I'm wrong about this, point out 3-4 articles where EoA is better - it's possible I've been looking at the "wrong" ones. Stan 01:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Examples: Thorondor (EoA), Gothmog (EoA) - and Wikipedia has only the 1st Age Gothmog, and no mention of the 3rd Age one (EoA), Balrog (the EoA article might not have more encyclopedic data, but it has more details on the question of Balrogs' wings, Angband (EoA), Utumno (EoA).. and more. Also, EoA has many maps, graphic timelines for each entry and some more illustrations. Ausir 13:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Well, I'd say to link to EoA only when it has more/better info, and remove the extlink when WP surpasses - readers would not be pleased to follow the link and find less than what they've already gotten! Stan 03:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a decent policy, although I'd also suggest including links when it contains different info, or even just a different point of view.

On another note, what is (or should be) the general policy for linking to other outside resources? The EoA is very good, but other sites like Ardalambion or my own Tolkien Meta-FAQ (or, well, its sources) are very valuable for the particular subjects that they cover. Should FAQ links be added to every relevant entry as well? And in general, where would this external linkage process end? (I'll admit that I'm already skeptical about the value of some of the links on the main J. R. R. Tolkien page: why link specifically to the New York chapter of the Tolkien society there, for example?) --Steuard 18:49, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

HoMe Policy

What's the policy on including History of Middle-earth info? For example, listing of different names and concepts for characters in various versions of the mythology at the end of the article, or adding background info mentioned only in HoMe, but not contradicted in later versions (like the only full description of Gondolin and its noble houses in Book of Lost Tales, or the only full description of Nargothrond in Lays of Beleriand)? Ausir 13:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Personally I include any material dating from after LotR without question (this includes HoME 10–12), as those are Tolkien's "final word" on the matter. A note should be given where the publised Silm. contradicts it. Earlier material I typically mention as well if it fits, but where needed of course give a note of origin. As later work shows very little was actually dropped, so it should be included. Jor 14:07, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was also referring to name changes in the HoMe. For example, Finrod Felagund was originally known simply as Felagund, while the name Finrod was given to the character later known as Finarfin. I just did an "Earlier versions" paragraph in the Finrod article. What do you think of it? Ausir 14:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just came across it, and I like it. Finrod is actually a very late change: the first edition of LotR still called Finarfin Finrod. Jor 14:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've started adding HoMe info to more articles (like Sauron). Another advantage we have over Encyclopedia of Arda - they have an in-world approach, so they don't mention anything outside the "canon" sources Ausir 16:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

HoME info is good as "extra insight", being careful to identify as such, since so much of it is inconsistent with the "canon". Stan 03:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, but some things even from the early writings can be considered canon, such as for example the names of the 12 companions of Barahir (8 of which were given only in Lay of Leithan). It was stated in canon works that there were 12 of them, and the 4 names given in The Silmarillion are consistant with the Lay of Leithan list. The same with the shape of Arda and the continents given in Ambarkanta - since it is the only source of information on that. In such cases, I don't think we have to write that it's from HoMe. Ausir 16:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However if we get around to expanding Gondolin, the name Rog cannot be given without a note, as it would surely have been changed by Tolkien had he ever rewritten it. Likewise the name Galdor was reused in later writings for a Man, and other names like Penlod would take other forms in the later writings (Possibly *Penloð, Penlodh). As I stated earlier material postdating LotR (which includes the 2nd version of the Lay of Leithian) could probably be used, but older material should be treated with care. Jor 16:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Middle-earth articles

I've created a List of Middle-earth articles, to tidy things a bit, and to allow us to see all changes in M-e articles just by clicking "related changes" in the list article. Go ahead and add as many articles as you can to the list :) 17:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tolkien stub message

I've made a special MediaWiki message for Tolkien-related articles, to help us, Tolkienists with updates, and collect a list of Middle-earth stubs in one place. Please use {{msg:tolkienstub}} instead of {{msg:stub}} from now :).

It looks like this:

What do you think of my idea? Ausir 19:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Legendarium

What do you think of using a "J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium" notice instead of "J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional universe of Middle-earth" from now on? I think it sounds better, as Middle-earth isn't really the name of the whole universe... Ausir 16:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In that case Silmarillion legendarium would be better, as Númenor, Valinor etc. are not part of Endor. What about In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium…? — Jor (Talk) 16:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In that case legendarium should be changed from a redirect to mythology into an entry on what is a legendarium (I don't think I've seen this word used outside Tolkien context anyway), and mentioning how it's often called Middle-earth mythology, even if it's not entirely correct. Silmarillion legendarium isn't better than Middle-earth legendarium, as it would still not cover the topics mentioned only in LotR, Hobbit, and other sources. Ausir 17:02, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as Tolkien fan who's not incredibly hardcore, I have no idea what a legendarium is. It's a little confusing. Stick with the original wording. Meelar 17:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's what the link to legendarium is for :).

The question of canon - vote

207.41.174.79 keeps deleting all things that contradict the published Silmarillion from Middle-earth articles - he changes Orodreth's and Gil-galad's lineage, and deletes Argon from Fingolfin and Fingolfin's sons' articles. Maybe we should have an official vote on what we consider canon here, to prevent an edit war?

Here are the options:

• We consider only LotR, The Hobbit, Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and The Silmarillion canon, and place eveything that contradicts it below the main article.
• We consider only works published during Tolkien's lifetime (LotR, The Hobbit, Adventures of Tom Bombadil) canon, and mention Silmarillion and HoME info below the main article.
• We consider the later writings canon (with an exception of the bigger changes that were never fully finished by Tolkien, such as the Round World version or Mannish origin of Orcs), and place the Silmarillion version and "round world" version info below the main article. (see also HoMe policy above)
  1. Ausir 14:03, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) In my opinion things like the final lineage of Orodreth, Gil-galad and characters like Argon, as well as things mentioned only in Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth or Wanderings of Hurin should be treated as canon. The Silmarillion version is "canon" only because it's what CRRT chose it to be canon, not necessarily correctly, as HoMe proves.
  2. — Jor (Talk) 15:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) This is also the position Christopher Tolkien takes, and the editors of Vinyar Tengwar.
  3. Steuard 19:09, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC) On some level, this strikes me as the only reasonable option. See my comments immediately below the vote for considerably more details on why I feel that way.
  4. Stan 20:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) One does have to draw a line - if Tolkien wrote down four names in a draft and scratched out three of them immediately, those are hardly more than random strings and would be just chaff in an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a summary, not a verbatim reproduction of everything. Names and characters from unpublished Tolkien writings should be mentioned, but in a "second-class" way, since it would be massively confusing to treat all that as interchangeable with published material.
• We don't mention the History of Middle-earth/Unfinished Tales stuff at all.

Further comments by Steuard 19:09, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC): Leaving out substantial portions of Tolkien's vision would cripple the whole project, adhering to The Silmarillion as published would mean propagating information that Christopher Tolkien has said was just plain wrong, and drawing a strict line between information published before and after Tolkien's death would be difficult or impossible (remember the blunders J.E.A. Tyler made when writing The Tolkien Companion before The Silmarillion was published!). But that does mean that it's necessary to come up with a clear and agreed-upon notion of "canon" (or to accompany every entry with HoME-style textual analysis). I've written an essay on my own approach to Tolkien's canon, which could be of interest to participants here.

As a side note, the chief editor of Vinyar Tengwar is a friend of mine, and as I understand it he doesn't generally like the idea of "canonical versions" at all. He prefers to accept Tolkien's corpus as a "continuing and evolving creation" (to steal a title from Wayne Hammond). That approach is very reasonable and should be considered as an option here. However, it's not terribly satisfying to those seeking an encyclopedia to tell them "final truth" about Middle-earth. Whether such a thing can even exist is an open question. --Steuard

I'm sure this is the right thing to do. Giving the source of each variant is most useful for an encyclopedia. Indeed, many of the articles on 'real' mythologies on Wikipedia would benefit from the same kind of treatment. Matthew Woodcraft

Wikipedia articles on Middle-earth are more numerous and detailed than on any "real" mythology :) Ausir 22:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting essays at your site. Thanks for the link. — Jor (Talk) 20:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! I don't know how much time I'll have to contribute here directly in the future, but I hope that my work elsewhere (whether original or simply "archival") will be of some use to those who do. --Steuard 05:30, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Anon problem

207.41.174.79 keeps reverting to the Silmarillion version... I asked him to stop in his talk page, but apparently he hasn't read it or doesn't listen... His entries are also quite unencyclopedic, like "Do you see what I mean? Anyhow, Though there is no name of a wife given"

Ausir 15:43, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Add to vandalism in progress if he keeps it up. — Jor (Talk) 15:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He probably has good intentions, and some of his other contributions are good, so I hope we will manage to convince him to stop. If not, I'll add him to Vandalism... Ausir 15:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Probably not vandalism, I overreacted. Intentions are probably good, I assume the anon is just now familiar with HoMe. Hopefully the anon will read his talk page. — Jor (Talk) 16:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conworlds

I have just reverted the page back to the version by DJ_Clayworth that does not mention "conworlds", as introduced in the subsequent edit by DarkFantasy. I know that reverts are frowned upon, especially in cases like this one where the new content was added in good faith, and I apologize if my choice was inappropriate (I'm still new here :) ).

My reasoning was as follows. First, the phrasing of the "conworld" edit was technically incorrect: it stated first and foremost that Middle-earth refers to Tolkien's entire imaginary world rather than just to a continent on it. (That could be a valid change in approach, but the rest of the article was not edited to be consistent with it, and personally I think I prefer the current approach.)

Second, and perhaps more important, the word "conworld" just feels a little too much like slang for a serious encyclopedia entry, at least to my taste. In support of this perception, I'd mention that the entry here for Constructed language mentions "conlang" only as a colloquial term, and uses it only sparingly in the body of the article. I have never heard a Tolkien scholar use the term "conworld" (for example, according to Google Groups the term has never been used on any Tolkien Usenet newsgroup).

And finally, while adding the link to "conworld" was probably a reasonable thing (particularly as the Wikipedia grows and that entry expands), the informational content of the edit actually seemed redundant. That is, the opening sentence already explained that Middle-earth was part of a fictional world. Saying additionally that it is a "conworld" doesn't seem to add much.

In short, the specific details of the "conworld" modification weren't quite right, and in trying to rephrase it I just didn't feel comfortable including the colloquial word "conworld" as part of the opening definition of "Middle-earth". It is possible that a link to "conworld" somewhere elsewhere in the article would be reasonable, particularly given the emphasis on relevant cross-links here. If it is added back somewhere, however, I would respectfully suggest that the link be given as "constructed world" to keep the tone of the article a bit more formal. (Alternately, a note could be added to the effect that Middle-earth was one of the first popular examples of a "conworld". I'll leave that decision to others.) --Steuard 22:07, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't constructed world and conworld just redirect to fantasy world? Ausir 22:17, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term, but judging by it's definition, fantasy is not mandatory. If anything, fantasy world should contain a reference to conworld. (An article which, were it not for it's last paragraph, would have belonged soundly in Wiktionary. I daresay it will be unstubified soon enough, however.) I've also gone over the fantasy world article, which states: "J. R. R. Tolkien created Middle-earth, one of the better known fantasy worlds...". This raises the question of how is one to refer to the world on which Middle-earth resides. Eä won't do, IMHO, as it is the name of the universe. -- Itai 09:55, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've been using Middle-earth legendarium (which doesn't have to mean legends about Middle-earth, but also legends of Middle-earth, which can include Numenor and Valinor tales). Ausir 10:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A worthy selection. Speaking of which, Middle-earth legendarium does not exist at the moment. It could be a redirect to Middle-earth, where most related information is to be found. Of course, It can also remain blissfully nonexistent. Nothing wrong with that. Loads of articles don't exist. -- Itai 14:29, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Errors in Foster's Guide

A recent edit pointed out that there are errors in Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth due to the fact that it predated Unfinished Tales and later books. I'm perfectly willing to believe this, but my impression before reading this had been that most of those failures were more a matter of "incompleteness" than outright error. (Certainly Foster's mistakes never rose to the level of "Sauron is an Elf" as Tyler's did!) At any rate, I am very interested to know some examples of those errors, both for my own sake and to share with others. (On the other hand, if the issue is mainly just a matter of incompleteness, maybe a bit of rephrasing in the article would be appropriate?) --Steuard 23:40, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Number of men in an éored" (article:Éored) springs to mind, at least in my edition. –Hajor 23:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Foster equated the Star of the Dúnedain with the Elendilmir, among others. Don't get me wrong, it is an invaluable source of information, but besides the obvious errors (lineage of Orodreth & Gil-galad etc.) which are due to the over-editing of the source material, the Foster guide also has several wrong assumptions — at least in my (old) edition. i have yet to buy the new one. Anárion 06:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Foster has the 'Gardner' family starting with Sam's son Frodo, but in actuality Sam himself changed his name to Gardner and is called "Sam Gardner" in the appendixes. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Errors in Tyler's Complete Tolkien Companion

A recent edit asserted that even the latest edition of Tyler's book "contains many mistakes". I have not yet had the chance to read the new edition, but when I skimmed parts of it I certainly got the impression that most of the earlier errors had been fixed. I am eager to know how trustworthy the current edition is, so I would love to hear what some of those "many mistakes" are. On the other hand, if nobody can list any, we should probably revert or at least moderate the current language of that entry. --Steuard 21:34, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

The lists

The lists should in my opinion be cut from the main article, and either moved to a seperate article, or merged with the lists that already exist. As it is now they mostly clutter the main article. Anárion 06:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moved to List of Middle-earth articles by category Ausir 12:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Map disclaimers?

The maps on the main page are good, but it might be a good idea to include disclaimers of some sort on two of the maps: the "Arda in the First Age" map and the map of Valinor. To the best of my knowledge, Tolkien never drew maps corresponding to those later than the period described in The Shaping of Middle-earth, well before LotR was written and before quite a few changes to the cosmology of Arda. Thus, I would suggest that some sort of disclaimer be added to indicate that the details of those maps are to some degree speculative. --Steuard 19:30, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

The Italian page has a great map, but it looks suspiciously like a copyvio, although they claim that it is PD. Salleman 03:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Middle-earth are we using?

I think we ought to have a disclaimer somewhere that we are using in this encyclopedia, the Middle-earth from

• The Hobbit (2nd edn)
• The Lord of the Rings (2nd edn)
• The Silmarillion (insofar as errors are not admitted)
• Unfinished Tales (insofar as not contradicted by stuff)
• History of Middle-earth (obvious corrections and updates from)

Our Gil-galad article for example unconditionally states that he was the son of Orodreth, with Fingon mentioned in a footnote. Amras mentions his death in the ships - and we have an article about Argon. The latter two of these only appear in Peoples of Middle-earth and nowhere else. Morwen - Talk 16:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Added such to the A note on "truth" and canon section. Ausir 07:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy (successful)

(Uncontested -- Jul 4) Middle-earth

Self nomination (I worked on it a bit, and a lot on other Middle-earth articles). A good starting page for Wikipedian Tolkienists. Ausir 20:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a good article, but too much of it is lists, really. Oh, and there is too much text before the TOC. Morwen - Talk 21:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Way, way, way, way too much list - that's 80% of the article. →Raul654 21:18, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, much of it reads as though it's trying to perform the role of a Category. Oppose, for now, at least. — OwenBlacker 11:11, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

these objections are now irrelevant ;) Morwen - Talk 11:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the whole list to List of Middle-earth articles by category. Ausir 11:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, thats sort of an improvement I suppose. However now its rather shorter. It needs a detailed summary of the whole creation myth; the Ages; who the principal races are - that sort of thing. Summaries of the plots of the Hobbit and LOTR perhaps. Morwen - Talk 14:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The map image is copyrighted, per the website from which it was taken. Jeronimo 17:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  The website's conditions of use indicate that items can be used for non-commercial purposes, under certain conditions, which are, in this case, met. See [1] Snowspinner 18:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

• I'll support. Could use another image. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Specifically, it could use an image of Middle-earth as a whole- at the moment there are only parts. Markalexander100 07:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There's an image of the whole world of Arda in "The world" section. The action of the books never takes place in other areas of Middle-earth than the north-western part, so there is not much info about the east of Middle-earth. Ausir 07:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I've added a wodge of summary of history. Support. Morwen - Talk 22:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a lead section. — Matt 23:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • How is that? Morwen - Talk 18:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support (partial self-nomination). I have helped put in a bit of work coping with concerns raised above and believe they have now been addressed. Anárion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - excellent article, informative. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Hmm, can you throw some bones to the LotR movie fans who'll be reading? - David Gerard 23:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object - overwhelming TOC and article triggers a page size warning. I suggest summarizing the history and moving the detail to a separate article. Also does not follow MoS by having links in headings. --mav 06:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Bah. Do you realise how hard it was to get the history that short already? Morwen - Talk 10:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Better now? I don't think it can be made any shorter and still make sense. Ausir 11:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've also done some removal of headers so the TOC is not so bad now.. Morwen - Talk 18:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Great work - support. --mav 05:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Great March" or "Great Journey"

This may not be the best place for this comment, but it's centrally located and I first noticed the issue in this article. I see that Wikipedia seems to use the term Great March for the voyage of the Elves to Aman. I do recall that term, but it has been my impression that the term "Great Journey" is more common. A Google search seems to bear this out: searching for '"Great March" Tolkien OR Middle-earth' yields about 600 hits, while replacing 'March' with 'Journey' in that same query yields about 18,600. I suggest using the more common term throughout, but I don't have anywhere near the necessary time to make those changes myself at the moment. Any thoughts? --Steuard 19:25, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the page. However now only Sundering of the Elves links to it at the new page (a redirect takes care of the others). I wonder how this happened. Morwen - Talk 20:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! (We still need to change the language in the affected articles, of course.) As for your question, if by "this" you mean the one "correct" link, I made it earlier today before noticing that the current Wikipedia entry was "Great March" instead. But in general, well, I guess some people must just be more familiar with the "Great March" name for some reason, and I don't think it's intrinsically worse than "Great Journey". --Steuard 20:28, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

It certainly IS the best place for this comment. This talk page has generally been used before for discussion on other Middle-earth articles. Ausir 22:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know I am late to this discussion, but Tolkien himself used "Great March" in the late Annals and in the Quenta… Anárion 20:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment on front page text

The front page text says: "Tolkien empathically insisted that Middle-earth is our Earth". Surely "empathically" should be "emphatically". Molinari 00:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Middle-earth *is not* Arda!

Nowhere Middle-earth is used to denote more than the continent. Arda and Middle-earth should not be confounded.

Tolkien many times referred to "Middle-earth", meaning the entire world, in older works also to the "Great Lands", but this was replaced with M-E in newer writings. Similarily the Ñoldor left Valinor for "the World", evidently contrasting Aman with the rest of Arda. After the Akallabêth Middle-earth for all intents and purposes *was* Arda, as the other parts of Arda were either removed from the World or were unknown/uninhabited. Anárion 14:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Like many terms, "Middle-earth" is effectively being used as both the blanket term for the concept, and for a specific part of the concept. Since the blanket term is sufficiently accurate, and preferred by all but a tiny group of Tolkien obsessives, that's what we should use. The article itself has plenty of detail on the distinction. Stan 15:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have fixed the article per Anárion's comments. The Undying Lands were never considered part of Middle-earth, even when the Undying Lands were still present in Arda. No inaccurate information in any article should be called "sufficiently accurate". I am unaware of any who prefer to consider the Undying Lands as part of Middle-earth. Certainly Tolkien did not. Jallan 17:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, it is very common usage for people to refer to the entire setting of Tolkien's legendarium as "Middle-earth", including Middle-earth proper, the rest of Arda, the rest of Ea, and probably even the Timeless Halls of Iluvatar. While this is not the "technical" definition, it is certainly a common one and probably a useful one. I've edited the article to restore this broad meaning as an "informal" definition, but I would certainly welcome further discussion and polish. --Steuard 23:12, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Three cheers to whoever got this article listed as today's featured article! -- Itai 15:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Canon and NPOV

I'm confused/concerned by this note in the section on truth:

For the sake of consistency, in this encyclopedia the following writings are considered canon:

• The Hobbit (second edition)
• The Lord of the Rings (second edition)
• The Silmarillion (except some editing errors)
• Unfinished Tales (except some editing errors, unless contradicted by later writings)
• The History of Middle-earth (especially late writings - obvious corrections and updates)

Thus, the article on Gil-galad states that he is the son of Orodreth, Amras mentions his death in the ships, and Argon has an article of his own.

Accordingly, Gil-galad has this horrid footnote, stating what references disagree on Gil-galad's parentage, even why these references probably better reflect Tolkien's clearest intent, after baldly stating that he is the son of Orodreth.

Why would we ever want to do things this way? Our experience with NPOV is the perfect way to deal with such discrepancies! If Gil-galad were a "real" mythological figure and the sources disagreed, then we would say upfront that there are different versions of his parentage. Even if the Tolkien fan community today has a consensus that the published Silmarillion is canon, then we can properly note this; but if any prominent Tolkienian (such as Tolkien himself in his unpublished writings!) disagrees with the fans' consensus, then NPOV doesn't relegate this to a footnote. We state all opinions together, noting which (if any) is the consensus but never claiming that it is true.

Since Gil-galad is entirely fictional, this may not be important for maintaining the integerity of Wikipedia and staying true to our founding principles and refusing to let majority vote decide the truth yada yada yada -- but it still makes for clearer and more informative articles.

Anyway ...

Was there a big debate on this somewhere that I should go read, or shall I start editing articles for NPOV?

-- Toby Bartels 00:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look at the Talk archives. We generally use the later version if an earlier one was used in the Silmarillion by an editing error. Information about earlier versions we include in footnotes. There are too many versions of many tales to include them all in the articles' main body rather than footnotes (imagine how Melkor or Valar would have to look like). Ausir 02:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The authority on published Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, has stated in the History of Middle-earth series that the published Silmarillion is in error in many cases: the "truth" is in the later writings. After a lively discussion here consensus was to follow CRT's notes as canon. Anárion 08:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, as Ausir mentions, the archive Talk:Middle-earth/archive 2 includes some discussion of this topic, including a vote. For its articles on Middle-earth, Wikipedia has mostly taken a "story internal" point of view: the subject is identified as fictional, but the articles mainly address their topics as reflecting the history of Tolkien's "sub-created" world on its own terms. Thus, the closest model for these articles is probably real history, with the caveat that Middle-earth had only one official historian, Tolkien. In cases where Tolkien's "historical research" doesn't give a clear, unambiguous answer to a question, then of course NPOV is required. But in cases where he simply "corrected his earlier research", those corrections should be respected.

And as Anárion points out, that holds doubly for cases where Christopher Tolkien's heroic efforts to edit his father's unpublished work were initially mistaken. The article on Gil-galad should no more present Finrod as a plausible identity of his father than the article on the Ten Commandments should present "Thou shalt commit adultery" as a NPOV alternative to #7, even though the Wicked Bible famously said so. A few of my further thoughts on the matter can be found in this essay.

--Steuard 19:34, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Toby. We should treat Tolkien's writings in the same way that we do 'real' mythologies: give the variants and refer to their sources. There's a good practical reason for this: many of the works which are worth reading for their own sake (for example the long narrative poems) are based in older versions, which we're currently labelling 'uncanonical'. Matthew Woodcraft

We do give all versions, we just include other versions than the final one below the main part of the article. Otherwise, it would be too confusing for some, IMHO. Ausir 18:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with labeling the (excellent) poems in The Lays of Beleriand as "uncanonical"? After all, "uncanonical" in no way means "not worth reading"! In my opinion, the Wikipedia article on Beren should state unequivocally that he was human, regardless of what the Lost Tales say. If the entry attempted to remain "neutral", it would be useless to the vast majority of readers. --Steuard 18:43, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, all other versions should be listed under the main section of the article. Maybe we should have a message on top of every Middle-earth article stating that this is the version regarded as canon, for other versions, see the bottom of the article or sth? Ausir 18:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If we did something like that, the new structure would have to be implemented consistently and as simultaneously as possible across all affected pages. (In particular, the "less canonical variants" section should look the same on every page.) I'd also suggest that the header message provide a link to a separate "Middle-earth canon" page that discussed the Wikipedia standard and the reasons for it. (And a similar link in the section about other versions would be helpful, too.) The effort required to make this work would be considerable, I think! But it would probably be good to have once it was done. (Would we have to go through and include "alternate version" information for every character and event in LotR, based on its drafts in HoMe?) --Steuard 19:32, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

How what I did at Eru Ilúvatar? Ausir 23:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice. I like the idea. Could we try to work into a brief explanation of what is meant by canon? (I.e. that it's generally compatible with LotR-era material but includes later changes made by Tolkien, assuming I'm understanding this properly?) It would be useful to have a write-up to link in that notice as well. I'd jump in and get to work, but maybe it should be done by someone with a bit more solid understanding of what is going on here. --Aranel 02:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it already contains the link to the A note on truth an canon" section of Middle-earth. Ausir 07:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I feel this article and its talk are the best spot for any M-e canon discussion, as the question involves the entire legendarium. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 07:46, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. I've changed the wording a bit to remove the comments on "final" vs. "older" versions of the legendarium, as those don't necessarily correspond to our standard of canon (though they're obviously closely related). For example, Wikipedia clearly does not treat the "Round World" cosmology of Tolkien's late writings as canon (nor should it, in my opinion). I may revise the message a bit more to take Aranel's comments into account. And I'm thinking more and more that a separate page on the Middle-earth canon would be a good thing (as well as being a good example to link to from the canon (fiction) entry). --Steuard 19:46, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

This is coming together quite nicely. I guess the next step is to put together a guide for editors of Tolkien-related articles and link it prominently. (The trick is to be clear without scaring people away. Make sure it's clear where you are getting your info, and someone with more info can come along and update you if they've read more HoME than you have.) Any volunteers? (I don't want to look like I'm avoiding the work here, but again, I'm an old Tolkien fan but I'm new to Wikipedia.) --Aranel 20:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's raises a good point: how likely is it that this little disclaimer will distract readers from the information in the main article? I've gone back and re-edited the template to be more concise, hopefully without sacrificing much information. I don't know that an explicit guide for editors is necessary, either: any kinks should get ironed out eventually by the community, particularly once the template is visible on more of the relevant pages. --Steuard 01:26, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I just took the plunge and moved the whole discussion of "truth" and canon to its own article, Middle-earth canon. I replaced it with a brief paragraph in the introduction, including a link to the new article. Assuming everyone likes this new arrangement, I expect that discussion of this topic will eventually migrate to the new article's talk page. --Steuard 02:31, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, what a great answer to my question this has been! Regarding guides for editors, is there a Tolkien WikiProject? That may be just the sort of thing that's needed. -- Toby Bartels 12:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope, there is none. Ausir 14:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting a "Tolkien and Middle-earth" project. What do you think? In addition to the canon information (or, rather, a link to it), what should be included? (Off the top of my head, something about always capitalizing Hobbit, Dwarf, Elf, and Man and something about formatting of dates. T.A. or TA for Third Age? And it's got to be linked to the relevant article. I'm tired of adding this where it was omitted...) --Aranel 01:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Amras

If we take Amras' death in Losgar as canon, shouldn't we edit all articles that mention Amrod and Amras in later times to include only Amrod (with the canon disclaimer)? Ausir 20:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. But there are more cases where the canon disclaimer is missing, such as most articles on the family of Finwë (esp. Finarfin's sons/grandsons). I am willing to do a lot of this myself, but it will take a few days (I mostly edit from work during slow hours). [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 21:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of proper nouns

I'm posting this here because it affects all Middle-earth articles.

I've done some poking around in LotR, the Silmarillion, and various assorted other books (i.e. mostly from HoME) and have come to the conclusion that Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and Ringwraiths (or Ring-wraiths) are the proper spellings and capitalizations. (This also applies to Ents, but for some reason that confuses people less.) I need to look into Orcs and Trolls.

Men is a particularly important word, since it means "human being" if capitalized and "adult male" otherwise. So the category "Middle-earth men" technically refers to all adult males. Yes, we could list Celeborn and Thingol there. And if you think this is splitting hairs, ask the Witch-king.

I propose that we move the categories back to the (in some cases) original capitalizations. Wikipedia policy recommends lowercase in titles, except for the first word and proper nouns. These are all proper nouns. If we start by moving the categories to the correct capitalizations, that will be a good hint that this is the preffered form.

Yes, I know it won't be an easy job. As far as I can tell, one has to move all of the articles individually to the new category. But it's worth it, in my opinion, to correct misinformation. (Also, what the heck, we could do with some belated spring cleaning. Yes, I am volunteering.) --Aranel 20:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did Sauron take the Ring to Numenor?

At present, the article implies that he did. However, it doesn't say how Sauron recovered the Ring after the downfall of Numenor. The Silmarillion is strangely silent. It doesn't say anything about Sauron taking the Ring to Numenor. It only says that after the spirit of Sauron regained a corporeal form in Mordor, after the downfall, that he 'once again picked up the Ring.' This suggests (to me) that Sauron left the Ring in Mordor when he went to Numenor as Ar Pharazon's hostage, in which case the article is wrong. Does History of Middle-earth shed any light on this topic? Will someone with greater familiarity with the canon than me kindly offer an opinion? Thanks. Lance Williams 22:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your question is a good one, but happily, Tolkien himself answered it. In Letter #211, Tolkien says that when Sauron was taken to Numenor as a prisoner, "he naturally had the One Ring". He goes on to say that at the time of the Akallabeth, "Though reduced to 'a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended." As for the quote from The Silmarillion that you mention, the actual wording is "He took up again the great Ring"; note that one common meaning of "to take up" is "to begin to use". For more information, see the links provided below. (My comments here are based on my FAQ, the first of these links.) --Steuard 16:37, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

• http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/History.html#RingNumenor
• http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-Numenor
• http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-ReturnFromNumenor

Reversion of recent edit

Since I generally don't like reverting seemingly well-intentioned contributions, I feel I should explain my recent near-revert of edits by LegolasGreenleaf in the section "The Name". Several of his changes were apparently to use "—" to mark translations or definitions in place of commas or parentheses. That may be one accepted style for such things, but I haven't seen it often, and I felt it could lead to confusion (I thought at first that he was trying to group "Aman, and hell" as the definition of "Over-heaven", for example). I didn't see the point of making "oikoumenē" a link when there's no article for it, particularly when the link was applied to the second occurrence of the word. His new entry in the list of interpretations of "Middle-earth" seemed redundant to me (it almost seemed like a summary of the previous few entries). I'm not sure what it would mean for Angband to be a geographic "relation". And I figured that "Mediterranean" is generally used as a proper noun, so it deserved to remain capitalized (but I kept LegolasGreenleaf's italics and link there).--Steuard 21:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

o.O aiight, i just felt that there was a need to edit that section. I've been 'bashed' a few times for editing on this page...maybe that's the last time i did it... lol it's kewl, i like the entire fantasy..but probably too newbie for this encyclopedia entry... =] — LegolasGreenleaf 02:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments above came across as "bashing". I really didn't mean them that way; if I hadn't basically respected your contribution, I wouldn't have taken the time to explain myself here. And if you think I got something wrong, I'll welcome your rebuttal: I'm not 100% confident of all of my choices. : ) --Steuard 03:52, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

• lol you took my meaning for 'bashed' the wrong way....see i included the quotation marks on purpose...i didn't actually get bashed for my edits lol...only MERCILESSLY edited, in every sense of the word. So i was a little bit discouraged in the beginning...now it's totally fine. TY anyways =]. — LegolasGreenleaf 07:17, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Image formatting

I opened this page, and I saw a big glaring bracket at the top of the page. I went to fix it, and found out that the problem is that the caption option in thumbnails of images doesn't properly read URL formatting ([http://nnn.URL.rrr/ Link description]). I had to reformat the images so they are in a seperate section (with the tag <div style="float:right">Image and caption</div>). Please don't go back to using thumbnails until the caption bug is fixed. Thanks, →Iñgólemo← (talk) 05:01, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)