Talk:Middle-earth

The last entry in the revision history for this talk: is dated October 2, 2002. That's almost seven months ago. How about we just delete the whole kit and caboodle and start talk:ing from scratch? Smack 03:50 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Done and done. john 06:16 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Ah. Stan just got done telling me to copy and paste it into an archive file.

I have a few suggestions to make.

First of all, I want to organize the Characters list by Race. Of course, there would be a category for beings of dubious or uncertain race, such as the Nazgûl, but I think it would be useful.

Second, I want to create a page called Chronology of Middle-earth or something to that effect (to distinguish it from the History of Middle-earth, which is a book). I'm not entirely sure what it would hold, because it does seem reasonable to have five separate pages for the Years of the Trees and the four Ages, but I'm sure we can come up with something.

Also, for someone who really, truly knows what's going on - is there such a thing as the Years of the Lamps, or is that time of history considered unimportant?

Try searching for "timeline" - there seem to be lots of articles that have it, either as separate articles or as sections. Or you could be stylish and call it "Tale of Years" :-) (but no, "timeline" is encyclopedically humorless). And there are "Years of the Lamps" but basically no info on how long it lasted (the absence of sun and moon making it difficult to tell time!) Stan 07:43 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm currently working on User:Itai/Middle-earth timeline -Itai 20:57, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now finished, at Timeline of Arda. -Itai 17:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, about the racial discrimination in the list of characters ;), a separate sub-list for half-elves, or put Elros with Men and Elrond with Elves? And what of Eärendil, if so? -- John Owens 07:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I think that the Half-elven should be listed with the races that they chose to belong to, with a little note that they are Half-elven. Eärendil seems to have opted for the Elder Kindred - he's still alive, isn't he?

Just a quick note - the Nazgûl are not of an uncertain race. They're as human as the rest of us, saving Elves and the like. -Itai 04:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ah, Tolkien fans... ;)

OK, I have my copy of the Tolkien companion, and it's got dozens of pages just of history and timelines... let me dig up the ISBN so you can go grab a copy...

Crud, I lent it to a friend. Give me a few hours, I'll get you the ISBN number. This is official straight up stuff from Tolkien's notes and so forth, so it's reliable as a source. --Dante Alighieri 20:51 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Here's something interesting, it's almost like the Wikipedia, but it's for Middle-Earth: Encyclopedia of Arda. Also, the name of my book is Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia by David Day. I have the hardcover, but it's available in paperback (ISBN 1857323467). --Dante Alighieri 09:11 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the "competition" that Wikipedia should improve upon. When I add to a Wikipedia Tolkien article, I try to make sure that it has more and better detail than EoA. Now, how to get atmospheric backgrounds for just the Tolkien articles in Wikipedia?... 1/2 :-) Stan 13:24 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The difference between EoA and Wikipedia is that EoA is not a wiki. I think that we have at least as much information as EoA, even if that's just because we draw from more sources that contradict each other. Smack

Umm, you do know that there is a specifically Tolkien Wikipedia, right? http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/ It's an old version of the software, though; for instance, I can't seem to get it to accept my identity more than one session at a time. :p But it is Wiki, unlike the above. -- John Owens 09:11 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, I didn't know about it! I looked at it a bit - seems more concentrated on arcane points than anybody would want for a general encyclopedia, for instance by the extensive use of lengthy quotes. Stan 12:56 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And it's much, much too small to do that. Gotta have the basics covered before you can start talking about whether Balrogs have wings (EoA). Smack

Races of Men

The list of the races of men – largely due to my intervention – is a mess. I'm not quite sure the separation of men into presumed Edain and Northmen is as accurate as some articles make it out to be. All too often one finds a group of people that fits into both categories. Oh well. -Itai 05:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another thought. It could be that the so-called "Races of Men" should be split into "Races of Men" and "Nations of Men". A "Nations of Elves" and a "Nations of Dwarves" lists may also be of interest. It would appear to be that the only considerate people of Middle-earth are the hobbits. -Itai 18:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Using 'Nations' would remove the 'general classifying terms' such as 'Calaquendi', 'Middle Men', etc., and that would be a shame I think. Perhaps 'Men' should be replaced with 'Mannish Peoples'? Take a look at my most recent edit, I've added another 'classifier' (Atanatari), so both Edain and Northmen are now clearly of one people. I think maybe a table to show a more advanced 'family tree' may be best, but I'd first need to draw it out on paper. I'll see what I can do here. — Jor 14:30, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Separate Wiki?

Has anyone considered creating a separate Wiki for the Middle-earth fictional universe? Though I'm not necessarily suggesting getting rid of content here. It could rival the Encyclopedia of Arda, especially as that's not extensible under GNU FDL... —Ashley Y 04:46, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, as the external links in this article mention, there's TolkienWiki. BTW, much of the material in WP already surpasses EoA for depth. Stan 05:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The TolkienWiki is using a different approach than EoA and WP: there you'll find long quotes from the material with then discussion on what this means. WP (and EoA) use a more encyclopedic approach. In my view the latter is the better approach. (That, and I don't like the wiki software used at the TW) — Jor 12:09, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Midgard

I do not like how this article looks now. I appreciate the efford to write about norse mythology and it's relation to Tolkien's works, but I think we should keep two different articles on Middle-earth = Midgard and Tolkiens Middle-earth. An article about both will be too long, and it won't do justice to either topic. I'm sure you can and should write just as much about Middle-earth = Midgard as about the Tolkien stuff, and that would make for an almost unreadable article. If you really think it necessary that Middle-earth must point to both then it needs to be turned into a disambig page. But the argument against this is that fixing all the links would be a horrible job. I suggest putting most of the norse stuff here back to Midgard (currently a redirrect pointing here). I think it would be enough to put a reference to Midgard in the first line of the existing middle-earth article so that folks will find the correct page. But please don't simply revert that anon users changes because he did good work. Lady Tenar 16:54, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. All this article needs is a short note that Tolkien's Middle-earth is related to the term Midgard, and all the Midgard stuff can go there.Jo r 16:57, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I concur, inasmuch as contents relating to Midgard should be moved to the corresponding entry. A more interesting question - one that I've seen discussed, although I can't at the moment remember where - is whether Middle-earth should serve as the main Tolkien fiction article, as it does now. For my part, I am (as always) perfectly content to leave things as they are. This philosophy of mine also applies to killer Mars fungi and the less dangerous evil, mad tyrants. -Itai 17:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention appears to be to add (Middle-earth) at the end of article names where needed to disambiguate between Tolkien's and other (Gimli vs Gimli (Middle-earth) for example), so Middle-earth as the main article makes sense. If only because use of the term is almost always referring to Tolkien's work—the medieval use is very rare. Jo r 17:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Right, didn't think about that. Seems reasonable enough. -Itai 17:44, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I made the split of Midgard and Middle-earth. I think the Cynewulf quote, while attributed to Tolkien, better belongs there than here: this article should contain info only about Tolkien's continent of Arda. But feel free to disagree ;) Jo r 17:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tanks Jor. Now that i'm back from dinner i'll do something about currently nonexistent Midgard(role-playing game) article and fix the false links to Midgard meaning this. Btw most stuff here about norse mythology is a mess that needs lots of work, but this is the wrong place to discuss this. Wikipedia is driving me slowly insane. I think the Cynewulf/Beowulf stuff should be in the Tolkien article, and may be in shorter form in the Midgard article also (little duplications don't hurt, i think). In fact that's of more interest to a Tolkien fan than to someone researching norse myths, i think. i'll do this later if no one disagrees strongly. Lady Tenar 18:24, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am the anon user who merged Midgard and Middle-earth. I have read the comments for splitting them, and I agree. In fact, I think both articles are better now than they were before.

Welcome to the wikipedia! so your contibution did something very good! thanks for adding good content and kicking me in the a** to work on the matter. Thats what i love about the wikipedia: The work of many individuals creates something that is bigger than what any one alone could do. I really don't want to step on your toes, but have you thought about getting a user name? It's anonymous and easy, simply click on log in and follow instructions. All you have to provide is a user name and a password. It does make communicating easier, and your ip is no longer broadcasted to everyone. Lady Tenar 18:58, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I've done so. Yes, Wikipedia is great! When at its best it achieves more than a work of reference in collecting knowledge from more sources than any single scholar is able to. I have taken the liberty of compacting the discussion of the relationship between Midgard and Middle-earth.Wiglaf

Links to TolkienWiki and EoA

Why don't we add links to TW and EoA articles for each Middle-earth entry in Wikipedia in the External Links section (just like there are links to Memory Alpha articles under Star Trek entries? It requires some work, but it's doable :) Ausir 22:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, TW isn't too impressing at the moment, but EoA is simply amazing. This could be done, although I'm not sure whether a change-them-all-at-once policy fits this best, on account of requiring extra work. Links could be added sporadically, whenever one chances upon a Middle-earth article. (Incidentally, I don't know if there is a Wikipedia precedent for such comprehensive external-linking.) -- Itai 23:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)