Template talk:The Lord of the Rings

December 2006

The full titles of the Jackson films really should be spelled out, but it looks unsightly on 800 x 600 resolution. Uthanc 07:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"One-stop shop"

If the intent is to make the template a "one-stop shop" for all LOTR links, they should be compartmentalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.47.249 (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Minas Morgul

Minas Morgul is not in Mordor, which the template seems to indicate by it being in parentheses. Lava Lamps (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, of but not in, an interesting edge case. I've moved it over. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Events or locations

@Chiswick Chap: regarding your revert, 2 articles are titled as "Battle of xx", which means that articles in question are either a) about an event, specially a battle, which means that my edit was correct in moving them from a location section, or b) that they are titled incorrectly and that they are about a location which has a sub-section of an event. Looking at Battle of the Morannon, the article is entirely about the event, as it should be. In en.eiki standards, the "Morannon" would not be notable enough for a stand-alone article. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this as well. --Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You are seeking to fit the materials to a predefined structure rather than thinking how to create a structure that makes the materials intelligible and navigable. A battle happens at a place. The places are, in a novel, frankly only notable when something happens there. In the case of the Pelennor Fields and the Morannon they are known for the battles that are named for them. In the case of Helm's Deep, the battle is known either by that name or by the extremely picky as the Battle of the Hornburg. If we were to have a sublist of battles, then we would name them B of PF, B of M, and B of H; but that list would be redundant to the list of places. Since they are in the list of places, which I think is the most satisfactory solution, they should be listed as PF, M, and HD, which are the names people know and recognise. A wholly separate sublist of battles seems foolish: the places are associated with the named countries. The easiest and best way to indicate that they are battles linked with the named countries is to list them as I had them, Mordor (..., Morannon (battle) ...), etc. Since you object to that logical solution, we are where we are. I've proposed simple and workable solutions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The most compact solution would be to use the battle symbol ⚔. This is unobtrusive and widely-recognised as 'place where a battle took place', just the meaning we need here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I disagree. It doesn't matter what they are named after, but what the article is about. If we take a look at real world examples and not fiction, we have Normandy for the location and Normandy landings for the battle/event. Fiction articles should be treated in the same manner, which is why I asked at the top, what is the article about - the location, or the event. The article is clearly about the event as the location is not notable for an article on en.wiki. To further this point, if we look at Wikia, they have Black Gate and Battle of the Black Gate. Linking to "Morannon" from a location section and then arriving at a very specific event that happened there, is very much what WP:ASTONISH says not to do. --Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Let's take time to cool off for a day or two; looking at external Wikis is not applicable here. Then we can think what to do to make this work as well as possible. The three battle articles are however all certainly notable, with multiple reliable secondary sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Middle-earth dwarves" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Middle-earth dwarves. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Amazon TV series

@Chiswick Chap: please provide reliable sources to support your suggestion that this series is based on The Silmarillion. As can be clearly seen by the reliable sources that are already at The Lord of the Rings (TV series), the series is based exclusively on the LOTR books and not any of Tolkien's other works. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Er, no, per policy the onus is on you, the claimant, to provide a reliable source that the series is (or will be, see WP:TOOSOON), based on LoTR. The fact is that all that has been said is that it will be in the Second Age, whereas LoTR is about the end of the Third Age, many centuries later. However, I've put the Middle-earth template into the article for you, where the series (if notable) will certainly be relevant. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is already full of reliable sources supporting my claim, and the fact that your only argument against them is a bunch of WP:SYNTH based on in-universe details tells me that you don't understand Wikipedia very well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal abuse is forbidden on Wikipedia by WP:NPA. The discussion is taking place at the article, and there is a clear developing consensus against your claim. For the record here, the sources appear to be unreliable based on a need to market and advertise the television series. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I never made any personal attacks, for the record. Lets keep this over at the actual page. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the proof is immediately above. Making derogatory statements about other editors's knowledge and abilities is forbidden. I shall not speak to you again until you apologize. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Illustration

@Chiswick Chap: Maybe you'd like to know that similar templates on literary works etc. tend to do without a side illustration (which I think is a good thing, actually, mainly in terms of a clear, concise layout – especially when dealing with more detailed content, as is the case here). But this remains a matter of taste, of course. Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: What do you think?--Hildeoc (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I told you already that I think a narrow image entirely appropriate as it takes a small percentage of the width - I even made it narrower for you - and it's very appropriate for the navbar, encapsulating the theme perfectly. In short it's splendid. It contains more than 50 Good Articles representing thousands of hours of work. Enough said Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Well, thanks, but I wasn't talking about the contents of the template, in fact ("It contains more than 50 Good Articles representing thousands of hours of work") … I still think we don't need that image here – even more so, as similar [Tolkien-related] boxes manage perfectly fine without such trumpery.--Hildeoc (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You said yourself that it was "a matter of taste", meaning that it is certainly permitted by policy, which it is, and that people like me may like it, even if you don't. Those other topics do not, by the way, have anything like such a clear and well-known symbol or icon. Matters of taste cannot, of course, be resolved by rational debate, so they are best left alone. Kindly stop pinging me, and please don't use any word like "trumpery" anywhere near me again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sharp backwards step

Two things have been confused in the recent destruction of the Maiar subgroup in the template. The one that matters is that the characters listed are of a kind, beings of great power, not ordinary Monsters, not Free Peoples, certainly not beasts; and as it happens this group does have a name, Maiar. The one that doesn't matter is that the book doesn't spend time going on about what exactly they are. The current situation, bundling the wizards unceremoniously into 'Other', is just a mess, a move directly in the wrong direction. I suppose the subgroup could be labelled 'Beings of power' and wikilinked to Maiar, but why don't we just call a spade a spade honestly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue with "beings of power" is that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry should be included under that grouping then, as the one thing about them that both Tolkien and his readers could agree on is that they are clearly otherworldly beings with power, especially Bombadil. The rationale behind the change I made is that, it would make sense from the casual reader's perspective for a template that focused on Lord of the Rings to be contextually self-contained, without overt reference to the extensive cosmology behind Middle-earth and Arda which is a cornerstone for the legendarium but not part of the original text as a whole. It's the same rationale why, after I recreated the Thranduil article, I labelled it as "Elvenking" under The Hobbit template even though the character's actual name is now public knowledge. Sauron and the Balrogs are discussed frequently in the Tolkien's monsters article (which is presented more as a concept rather then a literal listing of monsters or beasts) even though they are clearly in a class of their own, and the Wizards' exact origins aren't explored in depth within the published trilogy itself but like Bombadil and Goldberry are clearly not one of the Free Peoples. Anyway, since you oppose the change, and it's not a big deal in the big picture, I'll self-revert. Haleth (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou. Bombadil and Goldberry are not Free Peoples, nor is their kind of power, as spirits of nature, of any use in the War of the Ring; they don't fit in any category unless we create a "Nature spirits" for them, but general readers just wouldn't understand that or know the amount of academic pussyfooting that lies behind it. Sauron is not a monster-along-the-way like Wargs or the Watcher in the Water, indeed one might mention that he is the book's title character ... so the grouping is arguably best as it is. If the subgrouping continues to prove problematic then a fallback organisation would be to have a subgroup for Wizards, which nobody can disagree with. Let's leave it for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-political template

At the risk of stating the obvious, The Lord of the Rings is a work of fantasy literature, and this template is accordingly literary and fantasy-centred. Its adaptations have taken it into theatre, film, music, and visual art: all artistic media. The template has never been political in nature, and there is no reason to make it so now. Wikipedia has many politics articles with their own navboxes: this is not one of them. The recently-created article Erdoğan–Gollum comparison trials is evidently a matter of Turkish politics with a judicial aspect: none of those things are concerns of this template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the user who put the "Erdoğan–Gollum comparison trials" into the template. I honestly thought that the page did belong in "The Lord of the Rings" template. Though admittedly, I did have to put the page into the "Reception" section which was the relevant part I could shoehorn it into. I'm very sorry if you thought I was sending a political message with my edit, this honestly was not my intention. I will now the reasons how I found the page and why I thought it deserved a place in the template. I had only found about the page and the trials themselves because the page was displayed in the "Did you know?" column on the Wikipedia Main Page today.

It seemed notable because this had real life consequences for the people involved. Three people from Turkey (all in separate incidents) were charged with a crime in their home country and sent to court over pictures they posted on the internet that compared photographs of the President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to photographs of the character Gollum in the Peter Jackson film series adaption of The Lord of the Rings. The fact the incidents involved a Lord of the Rings character make me think that it was appropriate to add the page to the template.

Another reason I though made me consider it appropriate was the fact that there was a precedent on other Wikipedia pages which involved a President of another country compared to another fictional character and a similar negative reaction from the government of that other country. The pages both for Winnie-the-Pooh and the Disney version of that character mention that images similar from that of the previously mentioned incidents circulated on the internet comparing photographs President of China Xi Jingping to drawings of the Disney version of Winnie-the-Pooh. The Chinese government did not take kindly to the comparison and as a result, has suppressed Winnie-the-Pooh and websites in China have removed, blurred out, or otherwise censored all images of the character on their sites, even when they don't have anything to do with Xi. The Wikipedia pages for both the original version of Winnie-the-Pooh and the Disney version mention the incident and both pages otherwise do not mention any political subject at any other point other than when they mention the images comparing Chinese President Xi to the fictional and the Chinese government reaction to those images.

Once again, I like to apologize for unintentionally causing trouble and I hope that Chiswick Chap will forgive me. Thanks for reading! --109.76.97.207 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing, another precedent, this one involving an template, so this might also be of interest here. This precedent in question is on the template for the German band Nena, famous for the 1980s song "99 Luftballons/99 Red Balloons (two versions of the songs were recorded, one in German, another in English, both versions charted worldwide though the US preferred the German version despite the existence of the English version). This one involved another 1980s Nena song that charted in German speaking countries called "Irgendwie, irgendwo, irgendwann" (meaning "Somehow, somewhere, sometime"). In the template, in the "Related" section, is a link to the page about a spoof of the song "Irgendwie, irgendwo, irgendwann" titled "Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan", which means "Erdo-how, Erdo-where, Erdogan" (a reference to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the same person who was compared to Gollum). This spoof of the song was not recorded by either the band Nena or its lead singer who is also called "Nena", but was instead a performed on a German comedy television show called "extra 3" hosted by German comedian Christian Ehring on the channel "ARD". The song "Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan" uses the same tune as "Irgendwie, irgendwo, irgendwann" but with its lyrics replaced with ones satirising Erdoğan. As with the Gollum and the Winnie-the-Pooh comparisons, it's the reaction by an national government that makes it noteworthy. The Turkish government considered "Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan" defamation against Erdoğan and demanded that ARD delete a video of the song that was posted on the internet, ARD refused because the considered the song an expression of freedom of speech. When this was reported by the media, the video became much more popular and gained even more views on internet then it did on television, and English subtitles were added to the video as a result. This lead to a diplomatic incident between the German and Turkish governments. In response, another German comedian Jan Böhmermann, on his show "Neo Magazin Royale" on the channel "ZDFneo" wrote and recited a profanity-laced poem about Erdoğan that Böhmermann acknowledged was written to deliberately offend Erdoğan. This seemed to have worked because Erdoğan personally sent a complaint to "ZDF" and AFD (which both run the channel). The "Irgendwie, irgendwo, irgendwann" page briefly mentions "Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan" and the scandal it caused in the section "Satirical version" but other avoids political topics in the rest of the page itself (except the Cold War and the Berlin Wall as the page mentions that the singer Neno lived near the Berlin Wall when during the Cold War before she wrote).

That was another reason I added the "Erdoğan–Gollum comparison trials" into the template. It does some take time for me to type this so I'll stop now but before that, I have to ask a question that I meant to ask the first time. Can you please say directly say whether or not the link is allowed back in the template now? Once again, sorry for causing this hassle and I like to thank Chiswick Chap for his understanding. Thanks for reading!--109.76.97.207 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, no, it seems quite inappropriate. All the articles on the template, indeed on the entire Middle-earth WikiProject, are non-political. It is a literary and artistic domain. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is never valid; that you saw other drivers speeding will not save your licence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will respect the decision. Also, I advise Chiswick Chap to also remove the things I previously mentioned since according to him, they all break the rules of this site, something I didn't know when I started this. Thanks for reading!--109.76.97.207 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Repeated removal of icon contrary to WP:BRD

Woodensuperman, I'd be entirely within rights to revert again to the status quo ante, which is the proper place when a change has not been agreed, indeed has already been reverted with an explanation, and an explicit invitation to discuss here on the talk page. WP:BRD mandates you to be Bold, me to Revert, and both of us to Discuss here should agreement not already have been reached. Be that as it may, your reasoning isn't correct. The image is in no way "decorative"; as I already stated in the edit comment, the One Ring is a highly distinctive and widely-recognised icon of The Lord of the Rings. I have literally no idea what your talk of shifting the collapsible part of the template might mean; on all the browsers that I use (by different manufacturers, on different platforms) it all works perfectly, whether 'Adaptations and derivative works' is shown or hidden. We should put the icon back for the benefit of readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NAVDECOR, navboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative. This is already an enormous navbox, we do not need to make it even bigger by adding an image. It also hinders functionality as the navbox is partially collapsed, so with the image, the show/hide icon is shifted to the left, so that it is not immediately on the far right side of the navbox where would you expect it to be. Let's keep this navbox as simple as possible. --woodensuperman 15:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

We totally agree that there should be no arbitrary decor: and this icon is in no way remotely "arbitrary" or "decorative". The function of an icon is identification, recognition; and this small image functions extremely clearly in that way. If you asked any of a million Tolkien fans what the iconic object or image would be, it's the One Ring, so it is exactly the opposite of arbitrary; just as instant recognisability is exactly the opposite of decoration. In short, your argument is nonsense. I've still no idea what the supposed shifting problem is, I have just now tested it all out and it works perfectly; it does not feel at all complicated to do the showing or hiding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that the topic is The Lord of the Rings without a picture of a ring. Therefore any decoration is arbitrary. Please abide by the guidelines. --woodensuperman 16:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

And yes, from my browser the show/hide is not where you expect to see it with the image, so it is not immediately clear there is a hidden section below. The image provides no navigational benefit, instead a navigational hindrance. All the more reason not to include it, if you needed any more reason. --woodensuperman 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:DECOR: 'Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should ... serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension ...' The ring image reassures the reader that they are on the LOTR template, in the same way that the Wikipedia logo reassures us we are on Wikipedia on every page - even though there is a text title too.

If you find that the [show] link on the 'Adaptations and derivative works' section is hidden, then there might be an incompatibility with your browser. In Chrome and Firefox, the [hide] button is merely moved to the left by the width of the image, and remains a visible sign that the section is currently hidden. Or have I misunderstood the problem you are describing? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No that's still just decorative. I'm not sure what this nonsense about reassurance is. A navbox is for navigation. The encyclopedic benefit would only be if a visual clue is needed to understand the subject of an article (diagram etc). Per the very guideline An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function, which is exactly what we're seeing here. It is 100% not necessary. --woodensuperman 05:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A navbox is not an article. Its purpose is primarily navigation among many articles, rather than comprehension of a specific article. Some people find that a visual clue helps their navigation - and some don't. As long as the icon is not positively disrupting the use of WP by people who do not benefit from it, they can ignore it and let it be appreciated by those who benefit. That is, after all, why the facility to add icons to navboxes is there.

If, on the other hand, it is positively disrupting some people's use of WP, then we need to address that. Is that the case? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The navbox is called Lord of the Rings. It does not need a picture of a ring to provide a visual "clue". It's quite clear what the topic is. Therefore the image is arbitrarily decorative as it provides no navigational benefit whatsoever. Adding it goes against the guideline, which is clarified at WP:NAVDECOR.

And yes, inclusion does disrupt the functionality of the navbox as I have mentioned. --woodensuperman 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Disrupting the function of the navbox is a problem. Looking back at older versions of the template that include the icon, I cannot see this happening. Can you describe more clearly what goes wrong? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The image shouldn't be there anyway, but it was also shifting the show/hide functionality. --woodensuperman 21:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If the effect on the functionality really doesn't matter, then I see no reason (apart from your personal preference, clearly expressed) why the image should not be replaced. I am sorry if you still disagree with this, but the purpose of this discussion is to seek a consensus to change what was there before the BRD process started. I think we have clearly failed to reach any such consensus. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the reason doesn't matter as the guideline is clear. No images in navboxes. The only argument for is that you like it because it's pretty. It provides no navigational benefit, and does not meet the map exception example given at WP:NAVDECOR. The functionality is important, but secondary as the image should NOT be here in the first place. --woodensuperman 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Decorative images are fine if done well and are well-thought out and, importantly, if the navbox isn't very large. Large navboxes should go imageless, others, a case-by-case basis (and I've seen some very nice ones). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:NAVDECOR and all of the relevant guidelines decorative images are 100% absolutely not "fine". --woodensuperman 23:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Per common sense and WP:IAR a good navbox image, especially those that have stood the test of time, are fine. Some American presidential boxes are too large to hold images but have them, I stopped removing those awhile ago and hoped others would. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

But, what, this is about that image of a ring? That doesn't seem needed, and is kind of redundant to the title. Kind of like having corporation logos in navboxes, which I personally at least find redundant but some have lasted a long time and are added back if removed, so some editors must like them. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Visual icons are by definition redundant to text, but they approach the reader's (uh, viewer's) brain by a different pathway, so they aid recognition (as a ton of marketing people can prove to you at great length). You are correct that some editors seem to like them; and many readers find them unconsciously helpful. I also agree with Verbarson that consensus certainly was not reached for removal, so I'll put it back now to the status quo ante, pending input from other editors who have not so far contributed. I'll note that images with this icon-recognition function are definitely permitted, and are by this function not purely "decorative", though some icons may have that function in addition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Gollum

Should Gollum be grouped with Hobbits instead of Monsters? According to Gandalf, he is still a hobbit (He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed – as a hobbit might). Lord Theoden (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

He was by origin a Hobbit, but had over the centuries with the Ring become the monster as described. Scholars have called hom the archetypal monster of Middle-earth, details in his article. So, he's correctly placed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Could a Sméagol link be placed with the Hobbits while the Gollum one remains in Monsters? There are Tolkien scholars that interpret them as separate personalities, and this way the pre-corruption of the character is also listed. --Lord Theoden (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it's a redirect as you know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)