Talk:The Complete Guide to Middle-earth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Untitled[edit]

"it is generally recognised as excellent reference book on the subject."

Is this true? (I don't know; I find it about as useful as, say, pulling the information from my memory, but of course those of us who go around writing Wikipedia articles on these things off the tops of our heads are a special case.) My 1978 version is full of such delightful anachronisms as Celeborn-the-Sindarin-Elf, which of course was perfectly reasonable when it was written (and indeed, to say that he came from Valinor with Galadriel would at that time have been absurd). Therefore, its usefulness is extremely questionable, since the only way to know if it is correct or not is if one has prior knowledge of the subject. (It was, and remains, an excellent reference for things that have not changed since the publication of The Silmarillion, but of course one has to know which things those are.)

I don't know about the new version, as I do not own it. But the statement is generally recognized implies that everybody more or less agrees on this, which certainly wasn't the case with the '78 version. --Aranel 18:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the time, before the publication of the Unfinished Tales (let alone the History of Middle-earth series) it certainly was thé reference book. Even today, as many people ignore, reject, or are simply unaware of, these "late" publications, TCGtMe remains a valuable reference book: I certainly do not know of any serious competition. For those of us who do know and care about the UT and HoMe, it still is a good reference wherever not contradicted (barring a few real errors like the Star of the Dúnadan). I don’t own the new version either, but I doubt much has changed between the two. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, but as Drout acknowledges the usefulness of this book in the Introduction to the JRRT Encyclopedia I have left the statement and footnoted it with that reference (although he cites it by the name of 1971 pre-Silmarillion edition, which is probably not the one he meant). I am also digging for the place where Christopher Tolkien acknowledges Foster's definition of the "Star of the North" as correct. - PKM 21:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot's guide[edit]

why does The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle-earth link here? If this book were in the "idiot's guide" series, it seems logical that it would represent itself in the title. Shaggorama 23:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal moved this page to 'Idiot's guide'. The redirect was created when it was moved back. No need for it though. --CBDunkerson 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reassess[edit]

I am reassessing as "start" class. No longer a stub. (Hmm, is reassessing based on one;s own edits Bad Form? - PKM 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For stub and start, assessing your own stuff is fine. For the higher grades, not really. Let others judge whether it has reached B or GA class. By the time it gets to B-class or so (needs to be well-referenced and organised and nearing completion), submit it for review, either informally at the WikiProject, or formally go for a Wikipedia:Peer review. On that basis, it might be possible to upgrade to A-class. Then it will be time to consider going for Wikipedia:Featured article status, though this sort of article is not likely to ever be suitable for that - too narrow a scope. It will do fine as a supporting article to the other Tolkien articles though. GA-class is a sort of in-between thing. Some people skip it and go straight for A-class. Nice work here though. I like the references to the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia (I have that book as well) - could you do an article on that? It is probably also worth mentioning that Foster's book (not sure which edition) is mentioned by Christopher Tolkien in some of his commentary in the History of Middle-earth series. Carcharoth 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and some of the things it got 'wrong' could usefully be mentioned as well. Carcharoth 22:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation from Christopher Tolkien that I found while reading my Unfinished Tales the other day. Also cleaned the references up a bit. That should give the article a bit more 'flesh'. Comments? Caedus 14:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that A Guide to Middle-earth be merged with The Complete Guide to Middle-earth. The latter is an expanded version of the former, with both articles being very short. It therefore makes sense for them to exist in the same Wikipedia article. If responding, please use the {{agree}} and {{disagree}} tags so that a consensus is clearly visible. Dyolf87 (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adendum: I propose to merge the articles on or after 31 July 2018 if a concensus is reached in favour, or if no considerable concensus is reached to keep the two articles as they are. Dyolf87 (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The content can easily be covered in one article. Deagol2 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree These are both essentially the same book. The Complete Guide to Middle-earth is probably the better known title, so as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, I recommend merging the earlier version into the The Complete Guide to Middle-earth article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary or analysis?[edit]

Does the work contain any analysis, or is it just an organized plot summary? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really either. It's arranged as an encyclopedia, and it gives almost entirely in-universe details of each entry. Thus:

"AINUR (Q.: 'holy ones') Angelic spirits, offspring of the thought of Ilúvatar. Most of the Ainur dwell with Ilúvatar, but some, the Valar and Maiar (qq.v.), have come to Eä to fulfill the Ainulindalë. ..."

We can see from that snippet what the approach is. The definition "Angelic spirits" touches on the analytic, just about (as The Silmarillion doesn't say that directly); and the talk of coming to Eä touches on "plot", just about. But the intention is to enable the reader to fit the item into their picture of how Middle-earth works. The book has appendices, as The Lord of the Rings does, on chronology and family trees; those could be called analytic, but again, they are still wholly in-universe. This was clearly very useful back in 1971; by 2001 it was definitely dated, as the new edition had made no effort to incorporate the large advances in Tolkien scholarship. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap Thank you. What's your thought on that source with regards to confering notability to the topics discussed inside? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? It's clearly notable, as Drout indicates. Christopher Tolkien's evaluation settles the matter, too. I'm a but surprised you seem to be on the warpath like this against reliably-cited articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap I thinkl you misunderstand. I don't question the notability of this work. I am asking if you think that the existence of an entry about someting (ex. Ainur) in this work is an indication of notability of that topic; or in other words, what percentage of entries from this work should have stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. My rule of thumb is that entries from works called encyclopedias/guides/etc. that do not go beyond plot summaries are not helpful in estabilishing notability, and so I wonder how useful this works is for saying "topic x is in The Complete Guide... so it is likely notable". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Well, the entries are in-universe and so quasi-primary. As such they are useful for understanding and defining but they'll rarely help with notability. Foster covers many minor characters who aren't notable, for instance. A counter-example is at Tom Bombadil, where the book is cited for a theory proposed by Foster and attributed to him in the text. An exception that "proves the rule", perhaps. I don't think we can use prior probabilities; there is no relationship between being defined in Foster and deserving an article: we cover many scholarly topics he doesn't mention, and we omit many objects, places, and characters that he lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]