Template talk:Middle-earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium and related topics. Please visit the project page for details. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. |
| Template | This page is a Template and does not require a rating. |
[edit] Unwieldy
this template seems a bit unwieldy. I cut out the explicit listing of all HoME volumes. It cannot be the aim of this template to give a full bibliography (also, why was Bilbo's Song listed? See J. R. R. Tolkien for a full listing of works. dab 15:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I won't insist on removing Bilbo's Last Song, but, heck, it's a single short poem. You want it on this overview simply because it was first published on its own, on a poster? It's a part of The Road goes ever on, now. dab 20:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It is also available in its own edition. "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" is also available in collections together with "Tree and Leaf", but that does not mean it should no longer be seen as an independent work. A case can surely be made for not including the work, but that would also invalidate the standing of "Tom Bombadil" — which asides from the introduction has very little to do with Middle-earth… [[User:Anárion|Image:Anarion.png]] 21:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Reformatting
I've created another version of Template:middle-earth which is designed to go down the right-hand side of an article, at the top. It is at User:Time3000/Sandbox. I'm conscious that putting it on the article pages could be controversial (especially in such a high-visibility place in a relatively high-visibility article) so any comments or suggestions for improvement are welcome. This is copied from Talk:The Lord of the Rings in the Navboxes/Templates section -- please see there for context. Time3000 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Novel series?
I removed Category:Novel series navigational boxes, but it was reverted by Kevinalewis. My reasoning was The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are the only novels in the legendarium. Using "novel series " for LOTR itself is wrong since the volumes aren't stand-alone novels. (And even then, JRRT didn't like "novel", preferring "heroic romance"...) The Silmarillion is a history, Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth are... not novels at any rate, and the rest now published are poems or collections of poems. So what's appropriate? Uthanc 14:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- To the vast majority of people, LoTR is a series, The Hobbit is a prequel, and The Silmarillion etc. are minor additions, if they are known of at all. Putting it in this category is much more meaningful than omitting it; it is important to consider how the categorisation will be interpreted, not just how literally accurate it is (although I admit that I do occasionally do that...). Time3000 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- What is the fine line between what is commonly perceived by a majority or what is verifiable? Because it seems to be that this is a clash between accuracy and a generalization. Technically, Uthanc is correct and his reasoning can be justified by primary sources; however, I also see the reasoning in how it will be be meaningful if we did include the category. But is it more important to include verified truth or common perceptions that can be slightly misleading? —Mirlen 17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Choosing between "verified truth or common perceptions that can be slightly misleading" — just like the erroneous usage of Middle-earth as a blanket term for Tolkien's legendarium! Uthanc 11:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I created Category:Book series navigational boxes for this; hopefully other, miscategorized series will follow. Uthanc 11:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- What is the fine line between what is commonly perceived by a majority or what is verifiable? Because it seems to be that this is a clash between accuracy and a generalization. Technically, Uthanc is correct and his reasoning can be justified by primary sources; however, I also see the reasoning in how it will be be meaningful if we did include the category. But is it more important to include verified truth or common perceptions that can be slightly misleading? —Mirlen 17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
