Template talk:The Lord of the Rings

message: 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)
thread_title: December 2006

message: 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)
thread_title:  "One-stop shop" 

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Events or locations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Template:Middle-earth dwarves" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Amazon TV series 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Sharp backwards step

message: 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)
replies: text: No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Non-political template