Talk:Gondor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Picture?

(moved here from before TOC) -- Elphion (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We need a picture: they have a good one at Encyclopedia of Arda---Ricimer

'Gondorian'

I'm almost certain that JRR Tolkien never used the phrase 'Gondorian' in the books - he would have used Gondor, Gondor's or men of Gondor where appropriate. Astrokey44 01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

'Gondorian' is used occasionally by Tolkien - e.g., in 'Cirion and Eorl' ('In the days of Cirion Angrenost was still manned by a guard of Gondorians') and the preface to 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil' (where Firiel is described as a 'Gondorian name, of High-elvish form'). Rdwperl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Instead of speculating... someone just get an e-book and hit CTRL-F

Rohan

Gondor was located to the south of Rohan and to the west of Mordor, on the Bay of Belfalas. Actually Rohan was part of Gondor in early TA. Bryan 14:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say, "at the end of the Third Age, Gondor was located..." john k 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom/country

Couldn't country also apply? It was used but replaced. Uthanc 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 'Kingdom' is the most precise term, and contains more information than 'country', 'realm', etc. 111.220.193.75 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Better map?

Any way we could get a better map, which shows the different regions of Gondor? john k 17:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have been ideal to create such a map and add it, but as far as I know all user-created Middle-earth maps were deleted some time ago as derivative work, so now we can only use those drawn by Christopher Tolkien, and only sparcingly, under fair use. His map of "Gondor, Mordor and Rohan" accompaining The Return of the King could still be uploaded and included, I hope. Súrendil 20:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work, eh? If Karen Wynne Fonstad can write a whole book of derivative maps, I don't see how we can be prevented from making our own. Did she get some kind of special permission? Pay royalties to the Tolkien Estate? Also, could we add a cut down version of Christopher Tolkien's map, detailing just the Gondor part of it? As it stands, the map is mostly useless. john k 20:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, also, the map we are currently using is not, in fact, Christopher Tolkien's at all. john k 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not know the intricacies, but see the discussion at Commons. Many deletions are recorded here. You can also be interested in the current discussion going on WT:Me. I'm not sure about the status of the present map, as well as a couple of others, and I fear that they also may be deleted. Sigh. Súrendil 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is really becoming a terrible source for images on many subjects. It's quite irritating. john k 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
En, by the way, has a different policy from commons - I'm not sure that what is forbidden on the latter would be forbidden here. john k 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to art, just because you draw something yourself doesn't mean it's not derivative of someone else's work. All maps of Gondor are based on those originally drawn by CJRT, which in turn were based on the sketch maps developed by his father as work on the book progressed. Even if more detail is drawn in, a new map would still be based on the older work and be therefore derivative. We can therefore only use the maps under the non-free media policy, and they can't be freely licensed until LoTR itself falls into the public domain round about 2072 or so.
This is not the same situation as the Nasmith paintings. Since all maps must be at least derivative work, they're not replaceable.
Nonfree media cannot be hosted at the Commons, which is why ME maps will always be deleted from there. That doesn't prevent us from using them here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that there's no particular reason not to use user-created maps here? john k 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No, there's a very good reason not to use user-created maps. To the extent they show locations not mapped in the officially published version, they're original research. And if they show no such locations, there's no good reason to use editor-created maps instead of the originals. Those published in the more elaborate editions of LoTR are of very high quality.
Despite what I said above, I think it would be rather difficult to get them past the nonfree policy anyway. This is a work of fiction. When a place is described that is not shown in the accompanying maps, then the only information we really have is a verbal description. That makes it very difficult to argue that #8 of the policy applies. It cannot be "detrimental to [the readers'] understanding" of the topic to omit a map where there never was a map to begin with, but only a verbal description. It might be possible to successfully argue along those lines, so I left the possibility open, but I wouldn't be optimistic.
You'd need to pay particular attention to licensing issues. In a derivative of a copyrighted work, the underlying work must be fair use, but alterations to it are owned by whomever made them, and these alterations must be acceptably licensed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be OR to show places not mapped on the official maps, but which Fonstad, for instance, extrapolated from the text? I don't think this would fall under OR. But I agree that using the LOTR map would probably make more sense. The main point is that we should have a map in this article. 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Kenney (talk • contribs)
Not OR then, but it would then be derivative of someone else's work instead of CJRT's. They also run into the problem of being genuinely representative of the work. In many cases they're not, or at least include a good deal of information invented by the artist that didn't exist in the book. That makes it hard to justify them as illustrations of book-based subjects rather than articles on the artist or the artist's works. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maps are more or less permissible here on Wikipedia (provided they're not direct scans from copyrighted books), but not on Commons (which has stricter standards). Unfortunately, a lot of maps were moved to Commons, where they were deleted... AnonMoos 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? What you're saying is certainly true of real-world maps. Since they're all ultimately based on information that's common property, a redrawn map is perfectly acceptable. We are not in the same situation with a map of a fictional landscape. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Maps are not permissible on Wikipedia. The Middle-earth article states "The Tolkien Estate maintains the position that the geographical layout of Middle-earth or any other places in the imaginary universe created by J.R.R. Tolkien was the intellectual property of J.R.R. Tolkien and subsequently is that of his heirs. The Tolkien Estate has therefore restricted the publishing of maps to those authorized by the Estate and legally pursues anyone who publishes any maps, including self-made works, on the internet." That is a sentence I have added a while ago, paraphrasing an email I have received from the lawyers representing the Tolkien Estate concerning the extensive map collections on my websites in 2004. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2007 with the outcome of speedy keep. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the article on Lebennin relevant when researching the metaphorical significance of Tolkien's poem "Lebennin", and support keeping the article independent from the article on Gondor. Allisonrandal (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A merger wouldn't affect your ability to find that information. Typing Lebennin into a search engine would still bring you to the relevant section of a Wikipedia article or list. Click on Utumno for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dúnedain kingdom

Shouldn't the introduction of this article say that Gondor was a Dúnadan kingdom (singular) instead of the plural Dúnedain? I am not an active collaborator of this Wikipedia, so I don't dare change it :). Regards.--81.208.106.72 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's meant to be a kingdom of the men of the west, and as such should be plural. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, and of course to say "bee-hive" is incorrect since one bee doesn't make a hive, it should be "bees-hive"...--2001:A60:150B:7301:2C3D:4A8F:260F:B2B0 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe this point is now moot. -- Elphion (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Anfalas

In what way is Anfalas a promontory? Unless there is some obscure definition of the word promontory that for some reason cannot be found in any dictionary, it seems incorrect to describe Anfalas as one. Maitreya (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch -- the article was incorrect. I've changed it to read "the shoreline between the rivers Lefnui and Morthond" -- Elphion (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like someone was confusing Anfalas with Andrast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.220.139 (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Confused Regions

The section on regions has no apparent order. I propose to re-sort it alphabetically. Are there any objections? BTW, I assume cut-&-paste will not affect the "anchor" tags. 111.220.253.46 (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gondor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Denethor I" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Denethor I. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

""Dor-en-Ernil"" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Dor-en-Ernil". Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

History section

This article is excessively in-universe. The details of the history are mostly under control although might need a little paring back. I just rewrote them in proper style for fictional works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I would say there needs to be a little more revision. Also if anyone cane find 3rd party sources tobring to bear on the history section that might be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Better already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Geography

The geography section is truly out of control. Tolkien name drops all over the place and names almost everything, but we do not have to report every minor name and every description. There needs to be a lot more control used in this section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's way too long. On the other hand, if all the minor places are going to have their articles deleted, as seems likely, then they should have a home somewhere. One option would be to draw a map here, to replace most of the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Well I've sketched a map, so help me, with pretty much all the most important places. The Geography section is immediately more comprehensible, I think, and I'm less inclined (seeing the two together) to wish to delete the text as it certainly assists readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I still think we need to pare back the geography section. On the other hand I am not sure I have the patience or skill to do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'll give it a look sometime. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This geography section needs a major trimming. "The shoreline of Gondor between the rivers Lefnui and Morthond"? I personally think it's absolutely pointless to get into this much detail about the physical geography of a place that doesn't exist. Saying that part of a region of Gondor starts at the Lefnui River means absolutely nothing to a reader that doesn't have the LOTR Gondor map right in front of them. I'm going to start trimming this. I apologize in advance to anyone who this makes mad, but this just needs a rewrite. Hog Farm (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Primary v. secondary

Shoundn't the letters of J.R.R. Tolkien be a primary source. A secondary source is not only non-fictional per se, but it has to be seperate from the mind and will of the cretor of the subject, so in this case it has to be seperate from J.R.R. Tolkien.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've scratched my head on that one, as in true elvish fashion the answer is "both yes and no". JRRT wrote them, so a quote from him directly is prima facie primary. On the other hand, it's also generally NOT in-universe, but an account of what he was trying to do, so that has a strong secondary quality. Further, the selection and editing (and any editorial comment) is Carpenter not Tolkien, so there is a secondary element there also. I think it's probably not worth getting too steamed up about really. If the goal is to count the sources to prove notability, then anything connected with JRRT might be suspect; but if we need non-Legendarium sources, then a letter is certainly secondary to that. This is a case where "the policy says..." is not necessarily going to give a sensible answer so let's approach this intelligently; nobody is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap and Johnpacklambert: My take (which may well be wrong) is that Tolkien's letters are primary, but Carpenter's commentary on the letters is secondary. I see no problem with including Tolkien's letters in here, but we need to remember that we also cannot build this article on Tolkien's letters. I see those letters as more of a suplementary source to other sources. If we add enough good sources to this article, then we don't need to worry about whether this one source is primary or secondary. Hog Farm (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The main thing is if we sort our sources by being primary or secondary, we end up having to decide one way or the other. I do not object to including information from the letters per se. However some of the specific current uses from the letters may not be needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I would call the letters a primary source.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect targets

Johnpacklambert We have collectively agreed to remove many small articles on places in the Legendarium, and there has been quite good agreement also that redirects should not just point to "Middle-earth" but to specific targets for more helpful description in the small number of major Middle-earth geography articles, like Gondor, that will be all that is left from the hundreds that were recently here. Articles like Gondor will therefore be home to quite a number of redirect targets, names of smaller places such as hills, rivers, and provinces that will be explained briefly here, in context and supported by maps, to assist the reader. This will enable the reader to follow the quite complex discussion of the novels (and perhaps the novels themselves) using these pages, in an minimal but encyclopedic style. The process consists of deleting or redirecting many articles, leaving link anchors and brief texts in the Geography section of articles like this one. I hope this is clear and acceptable to everyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • It is not acceptable to me. When the article on Gondor is 3 times as long as the article on the real place of Dahomey it is a clear sign of racism in Wikipedia. When you use harrasment and other similar tactics to thrwart any attempts to make the article even a bit more reasonable in lenngth, and long passages to make it extremely difficult to edit, you just reinforce and continue these problems and inequities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA. Personal attacks, calumnies and accusations are forbidden on WIkipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert and Chiswick Chap: I would say there's a place in the middle for these redirect targets. We can include more detail at the more focused article of Gondor than at Middle-earth#Geography, but honestly, some of the brief references to places can probably go (not all, but some of the more minor ones). I do think the in-text anchor system is a little awkward. I've boldly reworked a couple of the sections into more of a paragraph setup than the in-text anchor format. If someone disagrees with this, then I'll make another section on this talk page and we can discuss it out. Hog Farm (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm sure we can work something sensible out - we have many thousands of editing-hours of experience between us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Way too long of an article

An article this length should not stand on only 8 secondary sources. The article as written spends way to much time quiting in detail from the primary sources and giving way too little analysis. We do not need to descript every city, vale and stream of Gondor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not meant to be a full length travel guide to fictional places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm sure that given the amount of editing skill available here, we can work out something sensible. Probably the plot summary can be condensed; probably the geography can be written more concisely without breaking lots of redirects; and certainly more sources can be found. Regarding sources, notability depends not on what is cited in an article but on what reliable sources have written, and I can assure you that Tolkien critics have written swathes on the Germanic Stewards of Gondor and much else. There is no necessary relationship between number of sources and article length, though of course they often grow together. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Right (some hours later): I've cut down the History and the Geography sections to something rather more reasonable. I've removed most of the elaborate detail on Tolkien's years developing the plot, as there's nothing like that on the other Middle-earth country articles (and nor should there be, I'd say); and I've removed the WP:OR from the Adaptations section, replacing it with some reliably cited analysis. I've actually axed well over half the total article text, and it's much the better for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

External links removed

I have removed two external links: The one to Thain's Book and the history of Numenor one. First, the policy on external links require that external links be required to be to functional websites, and these were both Wayback Machine pages, so I'd say this breaks the functioning website rule. Also, at least the Numenor one seems to have been to a personal website, which would likely not be considered an appropriate external link. Hog Farm (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. It is allowed to link to archives for vanished articles, otherwise there'd be no point in having the archiveurl= parameter: its function is to permit a link to survive when a website changes or fails (once notable, always notable, too), but you're surely right that these things should have been used in the text rather than placed as external links. We should check both sources to see if they contribute something useful and work them into the text if so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Since the history of Numenor one was written in the first person, and referenced other points of "my website", it would not be considered an RS. The Thain's Book might be worth checking into though. Hog Farm (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • History of Numenor sounds non-notable. The other one is less clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree. I've looked at them and there's no need to use them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"Plague of 1636" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Plague of 1636. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Various Stewards of Gondor redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address many different redirects related to the Stewards of Gondor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned redirects

During the latest rewrite of the Gondor page, a number of the existing redirects had their references in the text removed. I'm going to list those redirects below, and if nobody objects within the next day or two, will list them in a bundle at RfD.

Amon Anwar Eilenaer Halfirien Halifirien Sunlending Andras Ras Morthil Golasgil Dor-En-Ernil Dor-en-Ernil Cair Andros Calembel Adrahil Adrahil II Amrothos Edhellond Elphir Galadorian Gilmith Imrahil Imrazor Imrazór Imrazôr Ivriniel Plague of 1636 (also possibly ambiguous if a real-life plague happened in 1636, will need to look into that) Ethring Firien Wood Barahir (Steward) Belecthor I Belecthor II Belegorn Beregond (Steward) Beren (Steward) Boromir (Steward) Carma-cundo Council of Gondor Dior (Steward) Ecthelion I Ecthelion II Eradan Hador (Steward) Herion Hurin I Hurin II Húrin I Húrin II Morwen (Third Age) Orodreth (Steward) Rían (Third Age) Thorondir Turgon (Steward) Turin I Turin II Túrin I Túrin II Grey Wood Nimloth the Fair Tomb of Elendil Imloth Melui Ioreth Morgulduin Angbor Five Rivers of Lebennin Linhir Mornan Dervorin Harondor Poros (Middle-earth) Tarnost Stonewain Valley Tarlang's Neck Amon Din Amon Dîn Calenhad Eilenach Erelas Min-Rimmon Nardol

I have no general objections to keeping any of these if a justification can be provided, and if any are deemed important enough for text to be added, I have no objection to that. However, as it stands, these terms are not mentioned and are would be better off deleted. Also, what's the possibility that the folks at RfD will object to this large of a bundled nom? Hog Farm (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to make predictions, specially about the future. However, bundles are often difficult. I selected what I thought would make sense for the article, and looking through your list, we certainly seem to have a bundle of rather minor people and places there, seen from the outside, and I'd support your choice. Of course, from within the legendarium universe (as opposed to the Lord of the Rings text) things may look rather different. Good luck with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: You've demonstrated a very detail knowledge of Middle-earth at RFD. If I remember correctly, "Nimloth the Fair" is another name for the White Tree of Gondor. If my memory is correct on this, it would probably warrant a one-time mention in the text, and then have the redirect tagged as R from alternate name. Am I right on this? Hog Farm (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I'll fix it up now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not object to the deletion of those redirect pages. However, I share your concern that a bundled proposal may not pass. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and listed Plague of 1636 at RfD because there appear to have been instances of real-life plague in 1636, so it's for sure harmful to limit that redirect to Middle-earth. Hog Farm (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would think most of these can be deleted without any problem. They tend towards the minor, and most are never mentioned in the main text of LotR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nimloth the Fair is now mentioned in the article, and the beacon-hills are actually mentioned at White Mountains (Middle-earth)#Peaks, so I have struck those from my open for deletion list. Hog Farm (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"Ethring" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ethring. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"Linhir" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Linhir. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Merging White Mountains (Middle-earth) into Gondor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The White Mountains, a region of Gondor during various points of the plot in the works of Tolkien has little/no standalone notability in the real world (or in Arda either, IMO). I'm proposing a merge here, as some of the content would be useful here, but I don't see a reason why the White Mountains should have an article of their own. Hog Farm (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Notable places in Gondor would make a logical subsection here. Support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. I thought we caught all these...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - this is just a minor element of the story, however big they might be in the fictional landscape of Gondor. I've leafed through a dozen indexes and the critics and scholars haven't given this topic a moment's attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Amon Dîn" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amon Dîn. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Lefnui" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lefnui. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Lefnui until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Five Rivers of Lebennin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Five Rivers of Lebennin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Five Rivers of Lebennin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Tomb of Elendil" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tomb of Elendil. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#Tomb of Elendil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Starkhorn" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Starkhorn. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Starkhorn until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Mornan" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mornan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Mornan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Firienfeld" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Firienfeld. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 15#Firienfeld until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 03:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


Gondor and Austria

(from user talk page)

Hey Chiswick, I didn't know about the fact that the lead used sources lower down. Haha, my bad. Do you think this source good enough? https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1794&context=facsch_papers So I'll add a little blerb about it in the influences section and add the source down there? Nate Hooper (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nate Hooper: ok, no harm done, but it's standard practice. The source you name however does not say that Tolkien used Austria as a model; it just suggests that there are some parallels between Gondor and Austria. It would be surprising if Tolkien had used anything as late as the 1683 Siege of Vienna as a model; all the other models go back to the Middle Ages or further to Classical Antiquity (and perhaps beyond - lake villages look like the Bronze Age). My feeling, therefore, is that we'd need better sources than this, and to be extremely careful about what we might claim. Ideally we want to write "Tolkien used", cited to one of his Letters, rather than "Tolkien could possibly have used". Given the weakness of the source, it would be wise to find some stronger evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it could be helpful as a mention under an analysis section, if nothing else. Haleth (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a student paper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences. This article was published in a reputable journal, per WP:Scholarship: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses", so the fact that a student wrote it shouldn't be discounted as unreliable. It's not an instance of someone's graduate diploma thesis retrieved from a Google Scholar search, or somethiing which they chose to upload something which was never published before on a website like Researchgate. Haleth (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't make it the work of a major, respected scholar. Yes it may scrape itself over the ultra-low Notability threshold, but that is in no way equivalent to being the kind of rock-solid indisputably excellent source that we want, given the circumstances here.
In the same vein, Swycaffer was writing in Mythlore in the early days before it became a reputable peer-reviewed journal; as it happens, some of his suggestions are reasonable and are mentioned by other scholars, even if the drift of his overall theory is rather too much of an allegory for Tolkien, but one wouldn't know that from this source alone. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Emyn Muil" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Emyn Muil. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Emyn Muil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Glanduin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Glanduin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#Glanduin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Menas Teroth" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Menas Teroth. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#Menas Teroth until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Pinnath Gelin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pinnath Gelin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Pinnath Gelin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Galadorian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Galadorian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Galadorian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 14:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gondor/Archive_1&oldid=1109420585"