Talk:Middle-earth/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Listings off the main page

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Midgard 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: HoMe Policy

message: 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)
thread_title: List of Middle-earth articles

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  instead of  from now :).
It looks like this:
This article is a stub related to J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
What do you think of my idea? Ausir 19:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolkien stub message

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conworlds 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Errors in Foster's Guide

message: 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)
replies: text: Moved to List of Middle-earth articles by category Ausir 12:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lists 

message: 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 , but it looks suspiciously like a copyvio, although they claim that it is PD. Salleman 03:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map disclaimers? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Added such to the A note on "truth" and canon section. Ausir 07:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What Middle-earth are we using?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on front page text 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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).  21:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Amras

message: 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)
thread_title:  Capitalization of proper nouns