Revision as of 12:14, 9 January 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,438 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 9) (bot← 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 | ||
(25 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
|otd2date=2022-07-29|otd2oldid=1101065632 | |otd2date=2022-07-29|otd2oldid=1101065632 | ||
|otd3date=2023-07-29|otd3oldid=1167415846 | |otd3date=2023-07-29|otd3oldid=1167415846 | ||
|otd4date=2024-07-29|otd4oldid=1237292463 | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Lord of the Rings, The|1= | ||
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=top}} | {{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=top}} | ||
{{WikiProject Books}} | {{WikiProject Books}} | ||
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}} | {{WikiProject Novels|importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}} | ||
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top |
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top }} | ||
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Top}} | {{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Top}} | ||
{{WikiProject Popular |
{{WikiProject Popular culture|importance=High }} | ||
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=High }} | {{WikiProject Culture|importance=High }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Line 78: | Line 79: | ||
| accessdate = 14 March 2012 | | accessdate = 14 March 2012 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=="Although often mistakenly called a trilogy..."== | |||
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) | |||
: 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) | |||
:: 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". | |||
::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. | |||
::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) | |||
:::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) | |||
::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...'' | |||
::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) | |||
::::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) | |||
:::::: OK, the sentence is clear enough without it. ] (]) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:59, 22 September 2024
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Lord of the Rings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The Lord of the Rings is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Lord of the Rings has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 5, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
"Although often mistakenly called a trilogy..."
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)
- 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2024 (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".
- 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.
- In any case, the wording as it stands is incredibly WP:POVy. See Archive 7 for how it used to be more sensibly worded based on the same sources. — LlywelynII 13:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are any number of critical and scholarly sources saying the same thing, e.g. Robert T. Tally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 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. Ngram bears that out, showing the balance of scholarship and actual use isn't on the side of using the word "mistakenly" here. — LlywelynII 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are any number of critical and scholarly sources saying the same thing, e.g. Robert T. Tally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note also that Tolkien pointedly objected to describing this works as a novel (Archive 3). The current article begins
- This article is about the novel... The Lord of the Rings is an epic high fantasy novel...
- 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. — LlywelynII 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Scribolt (talk) 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 Strangefeatures (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- OK, the sentence is clear enough without it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 22 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 Strangefeatures (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Scribolt (talk) 16:21, 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- In any case, the wording as it stands is incredibly WP:POVy. See Archive 7 for how it used to be more sensibly worded based on the same sources. — LlywelynII 13:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use Oxford spelling
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Language and literature good articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Arts
- GA-Class vital articles in Arts
- GA-Class Tolkien articles
- Top-importance Tolkien articles
- GA-Class Book articles
- WikiProject Books articles
- GA-Class novel articles
- Top-importance novel articles
- GA-Class Fantasy fiction articles
- Top-importance Fantasy fiction articles
- WikiProject Novels articles
- GA-Class children and young adult literature articles
- Top-importance children and young adult literature articles
- GA-Class media franchise articles
- Top-importance media franchise articles
- WikiProject Media franchises articles
- GA-Class culture articles
- High-importance culture articles
- WikiProject Culture articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press