This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LlywelynII (talk | contribs) at 14:04, 17 September 2024 (note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:04, 17 September 2024 by LlywelynII (talk | contribs) (note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 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)
- 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