This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide toJ. R. R. Tolkien, hislegendarium, and related topics. Please visit theproject talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien
Note: Though it states in theGuide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe materialbefore the current action must be written inpast tense. Please seeWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide tonovels,novellas,novelettes andshort stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to thegeneral Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This template was considered fordeletion on2020 March 8. The result ofthe discussion was "merge/delete".
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? SeeJ. 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 asingle short poem. You want it on this overview simply because it was first published on its own, on a poster? It's a part ofThe 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|File:Anarion.png]] 21:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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 fromTalk:The Lord of the Rings in the Navboxes/Templates section -- please see there for context.Time300015:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removedCategory:Novel series navigational boxes, but it was reverted byKevinalewis. My reasoning wasThe Hobbit andThe 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 andThe 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?Uthanc14:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the vast majority of people, LoTR is a series,The Hobbit is a prequel, andThe 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...).Time300010:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 reasoningcan 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? —Mirlen17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added it - if somebody has a reason they do not like it then you are welcome to revert my edits - I only did it as nobody has replyed to my three questions above!Darth Newdar (talk)15:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article onTolkien's legendarium states that it is "the body of J. R. R. Tolkien's mythopoeic writing that forms the background to hisThe Lord of the Rings".
If that be our definition, and it seems a good one, then we should not be including articles about items, characters, and events that occur entirely or very largely withinThe Lord of the Rings. Perhaps several of the recent additions therefore do not belong.
By the same token, articles which belong in the LOTR framework should generally not also be in the Middle-earth Legendarium template, unless they are also significantly written about over there, i.e. in a book such asMorgoth's Ring orUnfinished Tales. --Chiswick Chap (talk)15:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the template is called "Middle-earth" and has always includedThe Lord of the Rings books are you suggesting removing these as well? --Gonnym (talk)15:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't part of the legendarium, but are relevant as related items. Perhaps the template needs some restructuring. "Middle-earth" is an ambiguous title (does it mean all Tolkien's imagined places, or just the continent of Middle-earth?) and (for that reason and others) not very suitable, really: for instance, the whole of the First Age action takes place outside or before Middle-earth, understood not to include Valinor, and the inclusion of Numenor must be somewhat controversial also though perhaps more justifiable. A much better title would be "Tolkien's legendarium" so that we cover that broad subject which obviously doesn't fit withinThe Lord of the Rings, and it would be desirable if the two templates had only modest overlap: there are good reasons for having both but not for having a massive duplication between the two.Chiswick Chap (talk)15:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with restructuring it. Would you mind showing what you have in mind in a sandbox? I see only a handful of links that are LOTR "exclusive", so don't really see what massive duplication you do. --Gonnym (talk)15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I'd do is remove the LOTR characters (and yes, I know some of 'em have a place in early drafts -- how could they not?), places, battles, and rings as I can't see the value of listing these again, all we need to do is place the LOTR template if we want them. The books are pretty much correct, as are the races. If you're against this reduction in duplication, then I'll suggest renaming the template to "legendarium books" or something of that sort, so there's no ambiguity; at the moment, it's a mess.Chiswick Chap (talk)17:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that Middle-earth is a continent, but the name is also commonly used for Tolkien's universe. While he himself didn't use it, it is commonly recognizable - and "fictional character from the fictional continent..." doesn't sound right. If we used "Arda" or "Ea", many people might not get it. Ausir 07:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I completely agree that Middle-earth is ambiguous in that is is both a continent in the universe Tolkien created, but also the commonly used name to refer to it. As Letter #163 points out, the LOTR books are part of legendarium. So basically, anything of the universe is part of it. We can call this template{{Toklien's legendarium}} afterTolkien's legendarium, and then also have a CFD to have the categoryCategory:Middle-earth match the template and main page. We shouldn't have a mismatch of these if we're already fixing them. --Gonnym (talk)10:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already hinted, I don't believe that "Tolkien's legendarium" is suitable either - you've actually just explained the ambiguity there also. I suggest we leave the category alone and accept the status quo, that "Middle-earth" is, as Ausir stated already in 2004, de facto taken to mean the whole topic, not just the topic: so there's no point creating a second equally ambiguous synonym. Since we already have good templates for "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings", what we need is something non-overlapping to cover the legendarium booklists, without venturing into the worlds of TH and LOTR. "Middle-earth books" might actually be a better title than "Tolkien's legendarium books" - it's shorter, more familiar, and not repetitive (since 'legendarium' implies writings, among other things). So, my proposal is just to change the title of this template and cut it down to titles of writings only. Everything else can stay as it is.Chiswick Chap (talk)11:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that is the proposal then that is a non-starter for me. We haveTemplate:J. R. R. Tolkien which has book only entries. I find an overall universe navigation template much more useful. I also personally don't see any ambigouty with "Tolkien's legendarium". It's already a page which explains itself. It basically is anything related. Don't see how "everything" can be ambiguous. --Gonnym (talk)18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's true, you're right there. But in that case I don't see the point of this template at all. We have JRRT, TH, and LOTR; what else would we need? I suppose there could be a Silmarillion one; but it's beyond me why we need to duplicateall four of those with a redundant Middle-earth template. It's ripe for deletion.Chiswick Chap (talk)19:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to work out what will work best and at the moment you're the only other discussant; and TfD is a very hit-and-miss process. It seems clear that the fate of the template makes sense only in the context of the whole family of Tolkien templates. What is your vision for the family of templates?Chiswick Chap (talk)19:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally a fan of universe templates such asTemplate:Arrowverse,Template:Star Wars universe,Template:Star Trek, as that is usually what content a reader is looking for. If they start reading about a subject, these are the most probable links they'd like to continue reading. Having a reader need to navigate different templates, which have the links split between them is a nuisance. If we were talking about a link for every single character, like Wikia wikis do, then I'd agree that a split between books (or something else) would probably be much more helpful for navigation, but since we are talking about a handful of links that are really exclusive to either the Hobbit or LOTR, then what's the point? To make the reader guess if the link exists on some other page? Where would you put Gandalf, in the Hobbit, the LOTR or the 3rd template? Or maybe 2 or even all of them? I personally think this is much better. Looking at the other templates, it seemsTemplate:The Lord of the Rings has a lot of links that are not even relevant to it. The whole "Related works" section in LOTR is this template. I'd say that without the "Adaptations and derivative works" section of LOTR template, this, LOTR and Hobbit templates would be an easy merge and would not be too big either. The section though, is quite large. --Gonnym (talk)20:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly agree that merging the templates into one 'universal' blob would be disastrous. The overlap remains troubling, especially as you have recently added the template to many LOTR articles where the LOTR template provides all that's needed. Perhaps the answer lies there for now.Chiswick Chap (talk)04:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legendarium template to cover legendarium, LOTR template to cover LOTR
There is a clear problem with the needless overlap between these two templates. The Legendarium is clearly defined in its article as consisting of the books that form the background to the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings template covers that book, and the places and characters and events within it, in the Third Age of Middle-earth. I suggest that we go back to what always used to be the case, and logically should be, that the Legendarium template covers the books and events in the Legendarium. It will be fine for the templates to note the other's existence in a 'Related' section, but it is quite wrong for the Legendarium to go beyond its brief by going into the action and details of Lord of the Rings. I propose we remove those details.Chiswick Chap (talk)21:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed above, your definition is just not correct.Tolkien's legendarium even states in the article and in letter #163 that the "legendarium" is everything including the Trilogy. Why would you think that the LOTR are not part of it? Also, even if we would have gone by your reason of thinking, your raison d'etre for this separation discussion is about topics that are not even exclusive to LOTR, as I've stated in that article. See also{{Arda Realms Age1}},{{Arda Realms Age2}}, and{{Arda Realms Age3}} which ended in a consensus to merge into this template. You could have voiced any objection there, but didn't. --Gonnym (talk)21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with reordering. I do think thatLiterary criticism is the more professional phrase. "Criticism" in this sense does not mean "reviews". See the linked article for more information. --Gonnym (talk)09:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Silmarillion is of course posthumous, but it's evidently different in kind fromThe History of The Hobbit andThe History of Middle-earth in being "written by JRR Tolkien" whereas the Histories consist in large part of analysis (by Christopher Tolkien); further, they aren't novels in themselves, but (analyses of) drafts of (parts of) novels. As such they might make more sense in 'Literary criticism' but it feels to me as if there's an intermediate category which we could call something like 'History of composition'.
The remaining posthumous works could, it seems to me, simply go into 'Works' --- after all, why is the date of publication so important --- or if people prefer, we could have 'Posthumous' as a subgroup of 'Works'. Either way, works likeUnfinished Tales andThe Silmarillion don't belong with the 'History' bucketful. In short, I think the current group3 is a muddle which needs resolving. If nobody objects I suggest we give it a try.Chiswick Chap (talk)09:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GivenChristopher Tolkien's many contributions to the Legendarium - as map artist, shaper and completer of the publishedSilmarillion, and compiler and editor of HoME - it seems unfair to omit him from this template. I would be inclined to add him in the top bar as a major contributor; alternatively he could go into the 'History of composition' section. To relegate him to 'Artists' would be to understate his influence.-- Verbarson talkedits17:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, yes. Actually we have THREE editors - Rateliff for THoTH, CT for HoME, and Hostetter for Nature of ME. Let's try grouping the history works by editor, I think that'll work nicely.Chiswick Chap (talk)17:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has attempted to impose a colour scheme on this template, after many years of using the default colours which everybody on this WikiProject and many others has accepted as quiet and appropriate. There seems no good reason to change, and good reason not to: not least that the existing scheme is non-distracting, familiar, in wide use, and indeed shared by all templates on this WikiProject. Let's leave it alone please.Chiswick Chap (talk)08:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirectTemplate:Ainur. The discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Template:Ainur until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.Hog Farm (talk)03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
