| Revision as of 10:25, 28 October 2021 edit73.70.13.107 (talk) →Influence on games: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:59, 22 September 2024 edit undoChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,206 edits →"Although often mistakenly called a trilogy...": ok |
| (96 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Arts|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{British English Oxford spelling|date=September 2010}} |
|
{{British English Oxford spelling|date=September 2010}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
| Line 49: |
Line 48: |
|
|topic=Literature |
|
|topic=Literature |
|
|otd1date=2021-07-29|otd1oldid=1036086190 |
|
|otd1date=2021-07-29|otd1oldid=1036086190 |
|
|
|otd2date=2022-07-29|otd2oldid=1101065632 |
|
|
|otd3date=2023-07-29|otd3oldid=1167415846 |
|
|
|otd4date=2024-07-29|otd4oldid=1237292463 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Lord of the Rings, The|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Middle-earth |class=GA |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books |class=GA |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
{{WikiProject Novels |class=GA |importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature |class=GA |importance=Top |list as=Lord of the Rings, The}} |
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top }} |
|
{{WikiProject Media franchises |class=GA |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Popular culture|importance=High }} |
|
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=GA |category=Langlit}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Popular Culture |importance=High |class=GA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=High }} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|algo = old(31d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 78: |
Line 80: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=="Although often mistakenly called a trilogy..."== |
|
{{archive box|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
Even if Tolkien hadn't himself called it a trilogy (which he did), this is slightly unhinged / {{sc|]}}y wording for something that{{mdash}}regardless of original intent{{mdash}}was in fact published and has continually been republished as a trilogy, innit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who call it a trilogy aren't mistaken in any sense, although there are historical / resurrection-of-the-author reasons not to consider it a mistake to refer to it as a single book or a hexalogy either. — ] 13:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Balrog == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Thanks for your thoughts. However, the statement is not an editorial Point-of-View as you imply: it is reliably cited both to one of Tolkien's letters, and to the Tolkien Society, so we have it on extremely good authority. ] (]) 13:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Can't we just say balrog?--] (]) 02:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: Except those ''aren't'' authorities, any more than the guy who tried to get everyone else to change how they talk by putting up a sign that "GIF is pronounced JIF, not GIF". |
|
:I think a succinct and accurate description of what they are/referred to as is justified and not unreasonable, especially as it is lifted directly from the page. I looked for 'fire wizzard' in the index, couldn't find it.] (]) 12:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Personally, I find these discussions of the nature of Tolkien's creatures tedious. They are fictional creations.--] (]) 05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Good for you, feller!] (]) 08:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: You are in the wrong place. ] (]) 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You are in the wrong universe.--] (]) 01:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Trilogy has a straightforward meaning, is widely used for this work, and original authorial preference for how the work ''wasn't'' published has no bearing. Leaving aside that you've got a separate source for Tolkien himself calling it one, not that it especially matters. |
|
==Lord of the Rings== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::In any case, the wording as it stands is incredibly {{sc|]}}y. See ] for how it used to be more sensibly worded based on the same sources. — ] 13:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Is there a citation to say this means Sauron? It could mean the One Ring itself, lord of all the other rings. ] (]) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
: Yes, see ] -- ] (]) 23:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
:::There are any number of critical and scholarly sources saying the same thing, e.g. . ] (]) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Your source admits in his opening sentences that everyone but the people involved in the process of publication (and a minority of fans) considers it a trilogy. , showing the balance of scholarship and actual use ''isn't'' on the side of using the word "mistakenly" here. — ] 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Further to that discussion, there is a parallelism between Frodo and Sauron. Both are missing a finger — the story of Nine-fingered Frodo is how Sam terms it. And they both lose their finger in roughly the same place. The number 9 is emphasised, and this was before the Beatles. There are nine Black Riders, and nine members of the Fellowship. The word "nine" is related to the word "new" as a linguist like Tolkien would have known. The ring-cycle of rebirth. The Shire parallels Mordor, at opposite corners of Middle-earth. They are isolated communities. One is surrounded by a hedge; one is surrounded by mountains. Bag End parallels Bara-dur. Fill in the blanks. There is a seminal paper about this that my roommate hasn't published yet.--] (]) 08:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Note also that Tolkien pointedly objected to describing this works as a novel (]). The current article begins |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''This article is about the novel... The Lord of the Rings is an epic high fantasy novel...'' |
|
== Stop editwarring on the hatnote for LOTR == |
|
|
|
::Any particular reason you're devoted to following the guy's opinion on one term but not the other? If anything, it's certainly a 3-volume work and only questionably a novel, unless you're going by the definition that ''any'' long piece of prose is automatically one. — ] 14:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: You are very argumentative. I'm aware of what Tally says, and we are not relying on him alone, you won't get anywhere by picking and choosing among the evidence. As you have already been told, there are multiple RS of which I've told you about 3 so far, there are others: the matter is reliably cited and not in doubt. Tally makes quite clear that folks think it's a trilogy but, and the emphasis is on the but. The weight of sources is more than sufficient for the statement. ] (]) 14:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
This is a warning to ] and/or other users, that a hatnote is necessary and in accordance with ], that repeatedly removing valid content without any reason is vandalism, and that showing no sign of communication by themselves but accusing another user of editwarring straightaway is uncivil behaviour. |
|
|
|
::::I would tend to agree that 'mistaken' is too strong to be written in wiki voice. Whether the 3 published works are a trilogy or not is not an objective fact that one can be wrong or right about, it's a descriptor applied to the work by sources. If we're going to say that it's 'mistaken' to be described as a trilogy without in text attributation, the bar isn't that there are sources that support mistaken, it's that any that don't are so outnumbered or discredited that they're basically fringe. I'm not seeing that. Britinaica refers to it both as a novel and also the Fellowship as being the first of the trilogy, which I think is reasonable; both descriptors are valid. I'm fine with the top of the lead describing it as a novel, but would support removing the word mistakenly, which would have added advantage of being in line with the body text in the publication history section. ] (]) 16:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::This sounds pretty reasonable to me. The vast majority of people who have read the work did so in three volume form. In the common meaning of "trilogy" this is a pretty apt fit so to call the majority of people's reasonable common sense interpretation "mistaken" on the basis of some letters from Tolkien definitely seems like it is a Point of View. Removing the word makes it substantially more neutral and conveys the same intent ] (]) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Reverts without any reason: . |
|
|
⚫ |
:::::: OK, the sentence is clear enough without it. ] (]) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
No discussion initiated on this page or on ] by these users. |
|
|
|
|
|
Uncivil accusation: . |
|
|
|
|
|
These users have not editted ] either, so it remains as a redirect to this page, which makes a hatnote necessary.--] (]) 11:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Dear RZuo, I am afraid you are mistaken or confused. You have three times attempted to add a redirect for the phrase "Leave outside the Immigration Rules" which one might expect to abbreviate to LOIR, were it to be abbreviated at all. A google search for "LOTR" does not turn up any page with that acronym and phrase in the first 10 lists of 10 pages; it turns up many pages of Lord of the Rings. There is no Misplaced Pages page named "Leave outside the Immigration Rules"; and the page you linked to, "Leave to enter", contains neither the words "Leave outside the Immigration Rules", nor the acronym LOTR, nor anything that would stand for that acronym. The gov.uk page on "Immigration Rules" cited in that article, needless to say, does not contain any of those three things either. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Further, you have accused me of incivility by placing a mildly-worded informal warning notice, above. It was not incivil in any way; indeed I could readily have placed a formal warning instead; and your action in accusing others of incivility is itself unhelpful. Further, the other editor reverted you properly. I do hope, given the amount of time it is now taking to deal with your case, that you will accept gracefully that your proposed hatnote may well not be justified in this instance, and that other editors have (all) acted in good faith. All the best, ] (]) 12:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Agree with Chiswick Chap; I see little justification for including the redirect. — ''']''' 13:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The hatnote is absolutely unnecessary, because the real point of contention here is that LOTR could also stand for "Leave outside the Immigration Rules" within a British legal context in addition to the more internationally known acronym for Lord of the Rings. So, undo the redirect, and turn LOTR into a disambiguation page. Except I notice that someone tried to do it back in January 2021, but that it appeared to have been reverted right away by another experienced editor. PS: The article for ] which the hatnote is supposed to point to is in a terrible state with little improvement over the last 15 years or so of its existence, so you might want to polish that up too. ] (]) 14:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
::::: Well if that's so then that'll be the best answer. ] (]) 14:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Personally, I would oppose changing LOTR to a disambiguation page without at least a few decent examples of people actually using the acronym to refer to this other subject. ] (]) 14:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: |
|
|
::::::: |
|
|
::::::: |
|
|
::::::: "They allowed BNO nationals to arrive in the UK and ask for ‘leave outside the rules’ or ‘LOTR’ on arrival." etc. etc. ] (]) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::''sigh'' it appears it is used in the official UK documentation. Carry on. ] (]) 15:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tolkien's dislike of the term “novel”. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why not remove the word “novel” (keeping the footnote), make “epic” the noun and call it a “high-fantasy epic”?] (]) 04:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure he thought 'epic' any better, but key point here is that a million IPs will add the word 'novel' straight back again as they 'know' that's the thing. All the best, ] (]) 05:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Influence on games == |
|
|
|
|
|
At the moment, Chiswick Chap is on a crusade to purge all mentions of Magic: The Gathering from relevant sections of articles about things that influenced, or are featured in, that game. No rational reason for this has been given except "not a list". If Chiswick Chap wants to cut down on the number of listed games, that's fine, but let's start by cutting the ones that most people have never heard of. The Misplaced Pages article on MtG says it had 35 million players (current, not the total number of people who had ever played) in a fairly recent year. By contrast, the entire Ultima series put together had sold a whopping 2 million copies by 1997, the peak of its popularity. |
|
Even if Tolkien hadn't himself called it a trilogy (which he did), this is slightly unhinged / WP:POVy wording for something that—regardless of original intent—was in fact published and has continually been republished as a trilogy, innit?
People who call it a trilogy aren't mistaken in any sense, although there are historical / resurrection-of-the-author reasons not to consider it a mistake to refer to it as a single book or a hexalogy either. — LlywelynII 13:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
