# Talk:Gandalf

Hello. I just wanted to offer that the term "protagonist", which is used in the lead and elsewhere in the article, is a subjective interpretation. It should either be avoided or sourced. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not really. It is used routinely by too many Tolkien scholars to mention. It isn't editorial invention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
But if you don't source it, isn't it something that could be debated? For example, someone could argue that Gollum is a protagonist and not an antagonist, or they could argue that he is both. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Not really, honestly, it's a commonly accepted fact throughout the literature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
If you don't feel like debating this, just let me know. I'm not much of a debater myself. I'm wondering, though, for a reader who knows nothing of Gandalf, how would they know that his status as a protagonist is a commonly accepted fact in literature about Tolkien? Why should they believe the claim that he's a protagonist unless you cite a source?
Hopefully it's clear I'm not trying to turn this into an argument AT ALL. I work on a lot of fictional character articles, and I have been advised by other editors to avoid the terms "protagonist", "antagonist", "villain," etc, so it intrigues me that your perspective is different from others. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Glad you're not "arguing"... It's absolutely fine to use descriptive terms like protagonist and antagonist; nobody, I believe, is in any doubt that Moriarty is an antagonist to the protagonist Sherlock Holmes, or that Sauron is a (massive) antagonist in LOTR, and nothing in policy says we should not be clear in our descriptions: quite the reverse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I mostly work on articles related to films and film characters, and the MOS for writing about films states:
"Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, or main character, should be avoided."
I'm not assuming that this applies to characters in literature as well, and there may other reasons not to apply it to a character such as Gandalf. I just wanted to mention it, so you're aware that there is some level of MOS caution about these terms. Wafflewombat (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Well this time you are *definitely* arguing, within the meaning of the act. If you want the b****y thing cited, it'll be done, but there is no reason to apply it to literature, and it's bizarre that it's there for film frankly. Don't remove anything from the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry I upset you. That was not my intention. Take care, and thank you for all the effort you put into Wikipedia. Wafflewombat (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to shorten the lead section? It's a fair bit longer than the lead in most articles. Maybe it could be condensed a bit?
P.S. I apologize for being argumentative on this page the other day. It won't happen again. I'm not here to lobby hard for a shorter lead, but merely to offer the idea. Thanks for your time. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The body of the article is well over 5,000 words, so the lead is not disproportionately long. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)