This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I see that this article has taken a turn too far into scholasticism. There are far too many statements of the form "Johnson described The Hobbit as a continuum between oceanic debris and a sacrament." This is not a doctoral dissertation, it is an encyclopedia, and as such, Wikipedia Policy requires all statements to represent the consensus view among scholars. Any statement that is attached to the name of an individual scholar is therefore suspect. If an editor wishes a particular point of view to be so attributed inline, then they must provide a tertiary source saying that this view is important. All other statements must be backed up with by a work that either claims to represent the consensus view, or to multiple secondary sources that all agree. These sources are not supposed to be named in the statement, they are to be given as a ref so that any reader who wants to can do further research. Abductive ( reasoning) 08:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The "narrow fields" comment applies to us all ;-) This is not the time nor place to discuss authorial intent - needless to say it is not a cut-and-dry guide to how to weight an article, Tolkien especially changes his mind often about the nature of his work over time, and often contradicts himself. Nobody is discussing Propp as an "influence" (but yes, there are several Celtic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric influences that are sadly missing at the moment.) Yes, Propp can be better integrated, but why must it be deleted (according to policy, not opinion, please)? -- Davémon ( talk) 00:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the Carpenter claim and the war - Carpenter writes about post-WWI modernist literature and would certainly tie Tolkien to the war. The current source is a newspaper review of his book with only a single para viewable to me, but I can get Carpenter from the library and expand that section. Then the lead can be rewritten accordingly. Truthkeeper ( talk) 01:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The “Publication” section from The Hobbit was temporarily copied into English-language editions of The Hobbit with this edit on February 28, 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. |
I copied the text of the section on “publication” from this article the article on English-Language editions of The Hobbit. But the result was not to my liking, so I self-reverted. If anybody else believes the text does belong in the article on English-language editions of The Hobbit, then please feel free to redo that edit. The above templated text serves as a record of what I did for GFDL (and/or CC-BY-SA) compliance purposes, especially in case somebody re-does my copy-paste job. Bwrs ( talk) 06:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Douglas A. Anderson has an article (previously published in the The New York Review of Science Fiction, and now on his blog [3] ) about a play version of "The Hobbit" written by noted SF author Joanna Russ in the late 1950s. Russ was in contact with Tolkien about the play (which he disliked. although Anderson said it's "overall, Russ’s version isn’t really any worse than other adaptations that have been done over the years.") Should the info go here or in Russ' entry? 176.61.94.25 ( talk) 18:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The current wording falls afoul of wp:undue and wp:weasel words. "A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories: (1) Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many" (2) Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said")...." As User:Abductive (reasoning) observes above, "If an editor wishes a particular point of view to be so attributed inline, then they must provide a tertiary source saying that this view is important. All other statements must be backed up with by a work that either claims to represent the consensus view, or to multiple secondary sources that all agree."
In this case, a combination of passive voice, the use of puffery ("widely recognized") and a citation to a single, primary source combine to create the impression, indeed outright declares, that there is something like a consensus behind what is in reality at best a minority, if not a fringe, view. The fact is, the 'Radagasius' hypotheisis has been advanced by a couple of Slavaicists, with no basis for tha contention aside from the superficial similarity of the names, and completely disregarding the (crucial) fact that Tolkien is not known ever to have studied Old Slavonic language or mythology. It is not unlike the Lydney Park ring nonsense or the Tourism Board bilge regarding Birmingham's so-called "two towers," based entirely on a vague parallel and a big heap of rank speculation. In this vein, somebody is currently peddling a book claiming that Tolkien got all of his ideas from Pawnee Indian mythology!
Tolkien acknowledged the few instances where his vocabulary and nomenclature were connected to real-world models, a bare handful of cases (outside the wholesale appropriation of the Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse languages): "Moria" derives (in sound only) from the Norwegian fairy-tale Soria Moria Castle; "ond/gond" meaning stone was a conscious lift of one of the only words thought to be known from the language of Britain's pre-Celtic inhabitants. Gaelic "nasc" ring and also bond, when Tolkien was made aware of it after writing LR, was to him a remarkable coincidence. All of these can be cited directly to Tolkien himself; but please, let's not be claiming that one academic's pet hypothesis is "widely recognized" among Tolkien scholars when it isn't, or soon we'll be reading here that Middle-earth's Pawnee foundations are "widely recognized." Solicitr ( talk) 13:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit from Strebe which had removed my changes, which were largely grammatical. Rather than begin edit warring, I thought it appropriate to discuss. Blanket changes calling commas excessive (when they are grammatically correct) is not helpful. * Seen a Mike * 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The Houghton Mifflin Harcourt "Readers' Guide for The Hobbit" quotes Humphrey Carpenter saying that The Hobbit is "largely a sustained exploration of evil." This is an interesting interpretation; how can it best be worked-in to this article? Bwrs ( talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see this also. J.R.R. Tolkein was famous among his contemporaries for being a Catholic author, exploring (along with C.S. Lewis, with whom he was good friends though Lewis was Anglican) the struggle between good and evil as it plays itself out in our world (represented as a fantasy world) and our selves (painted as fantasy creatures, or as the human beings who interact with them). The gradual surrender to sin and evil utterly dehumanizing and enslaving a soul is represented by the pitiful, revolting Gollum; Our human temptation, even though we see the ultimately horrible and destructive power of sin in others, is represented by Bilbo's struggle to resist becoming like Gollum after he takes the Ring. Both the authors together illustrate a very strong, orthodox religious perspective that was central to their own lives. It seems to me this shouldn't be overlooked. The article currently treats this literature as fantasy only; it is more than that, though we are not so ready to recognize it today for a multitude of reasons. However, an encyclopedia article should recognize it. 172.10.238.180 ( talk) 08:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page: Hi! I disagree with your undo on The Hobbit but did not want to get persnickety by undoing an undo. I thought the detail addition minor and relevant. After all, it is an accurate addition of four words total: hardly "too much detail" I think. Should we move it to talk? HullIntegrity ( talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
We have a new series of edits surrounding the auctioning of Bilbo’s home. Please let’s exercise some judicious thinking here. There is nothing about that particular detail that benefits the understanding of the story. Why not toss in the episode of wildly and futilely shooting at the deer in Mirkwood? Or climbing the tree and finding all the butterflies? Or the colors of all the dwarves’ cloaks? Or Beorn’s magical animals? We are obliged to keep the synopsis succinct by eliminating what’s unnecessary. That obliges us to exercise judgment about what contributes to understanding versus what add charm and realism. The latter is dispensable. Please read Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for a thoughtful explanation of how the plot summary should work. In particular, “The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included.” Strebe ( talk) 00:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The introduction includes the comment:- "The story is told in the form of an episodic quest, and most chapters introduce a specific creature, or type of creature, of Tolkien's Wilderland".
I edited the last bit to Middle-earth because:- (1) the introduction to creatures begins with Chapter 1, which introduces Hobbits (and Wizards and Dwarves), and continues with chapter 2 (which introduces Trolls) and chapter 3 (which introduces Elves). These creatures are not limited to "Tolkien's Wilderland", and in fact the individuals introduced (Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin & Co., etc.) do NOT live in Wilderland. Wilderland is properly the region east of the Misty Mountains, and Bilbo does not reach it until chapter 6. (2) Furthermore, many of the creatures first encountered in Wilderland (e.g. Men and Dragons) are not unique to Wilderland in Tolkien's Middle-earth. (3) I'm aware that Middle-earth in not named in the book. However most readers of Wikipedia would have heard of Middle-earth, and few would have heard of Wilderland. (4) In any case a link is required.
But I guess whoever reversed my edit knows better. Regards, 203.26.122.8 ( talk) 01:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The info box currently states that The Hobbit was followed by The Lord of the Rings. Looking at how the label followed_by is used elsewhere, I amended this to indicate that Tolkien's next published work was Leaf by Niggle, but retained the information that the sequel of The Hobbit is The Lord of the Rings. This has been reversed, with the claim that LbN was not in the 'series'. However LbN it was certainly next in the 'series' of Tolkien publications. Furthermore, in other authors' works, one notes e.g. that Oliver Twist is 'followed by' Nicholas Nickleby, although NN is not a sequel of OT. Or an example closer to home: the info-box for The Children of Húrin states that it was followed by The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, and LoGS only follows 'CoH' in the publication series (it was in no way a sequel). The relevant dates for the matter at hand are: The Hobbit (1937), LbN (1945), Farmer Giles of Ham (1949), _then_ LotR (1954). At the same time I definitely think it's important to include LotR in the info box for The Hobbit. Perhaps a separate label 'Sequel'? What do people think? Regards Jungleboy63 ( talk) 12:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I also propose to indicate the prequel to The Hobbit: namely The Quest of Erebor (albeit unfinished). Jungleboy63 ( talk) 13:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on The Hobbit. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Hobbit. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Simple issue on which version of the plot should be used.
This version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Hobbit&oldid=842601749
or this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Hobbit&oldid=842607232
For reference, this is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Hobbit&diff=842607232&oldid=842601749
Moonythehuman ( talk) 14:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Elphion reverted my capitalization change, having found an instance of "warg" in The Hobbit. Hence, the capitalization appears to be inconsistent. On the other hand, having found myriad instances of "Warg" and no other instance of "warg", I am left to wonder why the sole uncapitalized instance "wins". Strebe ( talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I tried to run down where Tolkien mentions the rule, but the indexes of the various works have not been helpful, and I haven't time to plough through HoME, UT, and Letters looking for something I'm no longer sure is even there. It's quite possible that I've internalized the rule mentioned a few times in various WP Tolkien talk pages, since several editors are observing it. And that, I think, is the crux of this discussion: it's not just about The Hobbit -- it runs through many, maybe even most of the Tolkien articles. I have no strong feelings one way or the other (believe it or not); I just want a simple rule we can all follow. You're talking about a change that touches the entire project, so the project talk page is the right place to address this. -- Elphion ( talk) 17:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to add above: Swedish varg is not in fact routinely capitalized -- not that that need bear much on what en:WP decides to do. Tolkien clearly borrowed the root, transforming it according to historical English sound changes (cf. Völundr, Weland). -- Elphion ( talk) 19:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
What about in an article that mentions both Hobbit and LoTR (like Warg (Middle-earth))? Saying that it's always capitalized in The Hobbit doesn't really solve the problem. As I said above, we need a project-wide methodology on this, and not just for wargs. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Guys, the Middle-earth articles number over 100, not counting the film side, covering characters, themes, places, poetry and other aspects separately: it makes no sense to try to cover everything in a high-level article on one book. There is a major article on J. R. R. Tolkien's influences; another on Gandalf, which also discusses influences on him; now people are wondering if we should include such matter here. I think that's simply not appropriate; there are far too many to include sensibly, and as it happens, the Kalevala is at most a minor and debatable influence on Gandalf (there's a stronger case for Tom Bombadil, actually, and from the same Kalevala character, Väinämöinen). The main influence on Gandalf is not the Kalevala but Norse mythology, as Gandalf is the image of Odin the wanderer, attested in reliable sources. But that isn't a matter for The Hobbit either. I've therefore cut the proposed discussion of the Kalevala and Gandalf from here. I do hope that's clear and acceptable to everybody. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Introductory paragraph on the Hobbit states Bilbo learns his romantic dude if nature, but there was no such "romance" in the book... I believe it is a wrong information, and could be looked into... 124.123.43.148 ( talk) 10:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There's no info about Soviet cartoon and TV adaptations of the book, but it is available in separate article about book's adaptations. Can someone transfer info from there to here? If simple copy-past is OK- I can do it. Gevorg89 ( talk) 11:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I see that this article has taken a turn too far into scholasticism. There are far too many statements of the form "Johnson described The Hobbit as a continuum between oceanic debris and a sacrament." This is not a doctoral dissertation, it is an encyclopedia, and as such, Wikipedia Policy requires all statements to represent the consensus view among scholars. Any statement that is attached to the name of an individual scholar is therefore suspect. If an editor wishes a particular point of view to be so attributed inline, then they must provide a tertiary source saying that this view is important. All other statements must be backed up with by a work that either claims to represent the consensus view, or to multiple secondary sources that all agree. These sources are not supposed to be named in the statement, they are to be given as a ref so that any reader who wants to can do further research. Abductive ( reasoning) 08:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The "narrow fields" comment applies to us all ;-) This is not the time nor place to discuss authorial intent - needless to say it is not a cut-and-dry guide to how to weight an article, Tolkien especially changes his mind often about the nature of his work over time, and often contradicts himself. Nobody is discussing Propp as an "influence" (but yes, there are several Celtic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric influences that are sadly missing at the moment.) Yes, Propp can be better integrated, but why must it be deleted (according to policy, not opinion, please)? -- Davémon ( talk) 00:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the Carpenter claim and the war - Carpenter writes about post-WWI modernist literature and would certainly tie Tolkien to the war. The current source is a newspaper review of his book with only a single para viewable to me, but I can get Carpenter from the library and expand that section. Then the lead can be rewritten accordingly. Truthkeeper ( talk) 01:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The “Publication” section from The Hobbit was temporarily copied into English-language editions of The Hobbit with this edit on February 28, 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. |
I copied the text of the section on “publication” from this article the article on English-Language editions of The Hobbit. But the result was not to my liking, so I self-reverted. If anybody else believes the text does belong in the article on English-language editions of The Hobbit, then please feel free to redo that edit. The above templated text serves as a record of what I did for GFDL (and/or CC-BY-SA) compliance purposes, especially in case somebody re-does my copy-paste job. Bwrs ( talk) 06:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Douglas A. Anderson has an article (previously published in the The New York Review of Science Fiction, and now on his blog [3] ) about a play version of "The Hobbit" written by noted SF author Joanna Russ in the late 1950s. Russ was in contact with Tolkien about the play (which he disliked. although Anderson said it's "overall, Russ’s version isn’t really any worse than other adaptations that have been done over the years.") Should the info go here or in Russ' entry? 176.61.94.25 ( talk) 18:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The current wording falls afoul of wp:undue and wp:weasel words. "A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories: (1) Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many" (2) Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said")...." As User:Abductive (reasoning) observes above, "If an editor wishes a particular point of view to be so attributed inline, then they must provide a tertiary source saying that this view is important. All other statements must be backed up with by a work that either claims to represent the consensus view, or to multiple secondary sources that all agree."
In this case, a combination of passive voice, the use of puffery ("widely recognized") and a citation to a single, primary source combine to create the impression, indeed outright declares, that there is something like a consensus behind what is in reality at best a minority, if not a fringe, view. The fact is, the 'Radagasius' hypotheisis has been advanced by a couple of Slavaicists, with no basis for tha contention aside from the superficial similarity of the names, and completely disregarding the (crucial) fact that Tolkien is not known ever to have studied Old Slavonic language or mythology. It is not unlike the Lydney Park ring nonsense or the Tourism Board bilge regarding Birmingham's so-called "two towers," based entirely on a vague parallel and a big heap of rank speculation. In this vein, somebody is currently peddling a book claiming that Tolkien got all of his ideas from Pawnee Indian mythology!
Tolkien acknowledged the few instances where his vocabulary and nomenclature were connected to real-world models, a bare handful of cases (outside the wholesale appropriation of the Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse languages): "Moria" derives (in sound only) from the Norwegian fairy-tale Soria Moria Castle; "ond/gond" meaning stone was a conscious lift of one of the only words thought to be known from the language of Britain's pre-Celtic inhabitants. Gaelic "nasc" ring and also bond, when Tolkien was made aware of it after writing LR, was to him a remarkable coincidence. All of these can be cited directly to Tolkien himself; but please, let's not be claiming that one academic's pet hypothesis is "widely recognized" among Tolkien scholars when it isn't, or soon we'll be reading here that Middle-earth's Pawnee foundations are "widely recognized." Solicitr ( talk) 13:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit from Strebe which had removed my changes, which were largely grammatical. Rather than begin edit warring, I thought it appropriate to discuss. Blanket changes calling commas excessive (when they are grammatically correct) is not helpful. * Seen a Mike * 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The Houghton Mifflin Harcourt "Readers' Guide for The Hobbit" quotes Humphrey Carpenter saying that The Hobbit is "largely a sustained exploration of evil." This is an interesting interpretation; how can it best be worked-in to this article? Bwrs ( talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see this also. J.R.R. Tolkein was famous among his contemporaries for being a Catholic author, exploring (along with C.S. Lewis, with whom he was good friends though Lewis was Anglican) the struggle between good and evil as it plays itself out in our world (represented as a fantasy world) and our selves (painted as fantasy creatures, or as the human beings who interact with them). The gradual surrender to sin and evil utterly dehumanizing and enslaving a soul is represented by the pitiful, revolting Gollum; Our human temptation, even though we see the ultimately horrible and destructive power of sin in others, is represented by Bilbo's struggle to resist becoming like Gollum after he takes the Ring. Both the authors together illustrate a very strong, orthodox religious perspective that was central to their own lives. It seems to me this shouldn't be overlooked. The article currently treats this literature as fantasy only; it is more than that, though we are not so ready to recognize it today for a multitude of reasons. However, an encyclopedia article should recognize it. 172.10.238.180 ( talk) 08:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page: Hi! I disagree with your undo on The Hobbit but did not want to get persnickety by undoing an undo. I thought the detail addition minor and relevant. After all, it is an accurate addition of four words total: hardly "too much detail" I think. Should we move it to talk? HullIntegrity ( talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
We have a new series of edits surrounding the auctioning of Bilbo’s home. Please let’s exercise some judicious thinking here. There is nothing about that particular detail that benefits the understanding of the story. Why not toss in the episode of wildly and futilely shooting at the deer in Mirkwood? Or climbing the tree and finding all the butterflies? Or the colors of all the dwarves’ cloaks? Or Beorn’s magical animals? We are obliged to keep the synopsis succinct by eliminating what’s unnecessary. That obliges us to exercise judgment about what contributes to understanding versus what add charm and realism. The latter is dispensable. Please read Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for a thoughtful explanation of how the plot summary should work. In particular, “The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included.” Strebe ( talk) 00:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The introduction includes the comment:- "The story is told in the form of an episodic quest, and most chapters introduce a specific creature, or type of creature, of Tolkien's Wilderland".
I edited the last bit to Middle-earth because:- (1) the introduction to creatures begins with Chapter 1, which introduces Hobbits (and Wizards and Dwarves), and continues with chapter 2 (which introduces Trolls) and chapter 3 (which introduces Elves). These creatures are not limited to "Tolkien's Wilderland", and in fact the individuals introduced (Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin & Co., etc.) do NOT live in Wilderland. Wilderland is properly the region east of the Misty Mountains, and Bilbo does not reach it until chapter 6. (2) Furthermore, many of the creatures first encountered in Wilderland (e.g. Men and Dragons) are not unique to Wilderland in Tolkien's Middle-earth. (3) I'm aware that Middle-earth in not named in the book. However most readers of Wikipedia would have heard of Middle-earth, and few would have heard of Wilderland. (4) In any case a link is required.
But I guess whoever reversed my edit knows better. Regards, 203.26.122.8 ( talk) 01:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The info box currently states that The Hobbit was followed by The Lord of the Rings. Looking at how the label followed_by is used elsewhere, I amended this to indicate that Tolkien's next published work was Leaf by Niggle, but retained the information that the sequel of The Hobbit is The Lord of the Rings. This has been reversed, with the claim that LbN was not in the 'series'. However LbN it was certainly next in the 'series' of Tolkien publications. Furthermore, in other authors' works, one notes e.g. that Oliver Twist is 'followed by' Nicholas Nickleby, although NN is not a sequel of OT. Or an example closer to home: the info-box for The Children of Húrin states that it was followed by The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, and LoGS only follows 'CoH' in the publication series (it was in no way a sequel). The relevant dates for the matter at hand are: The Hobbit (1937), LbN (1945), Farmer Giles of Ham (1949), _then_ LotR (1954). At the same time I definitely think it's important to include LotR in the info box for The Hobbit. Perhaps a separate label 'Sequel'? What do people think? Regards Jungleboy63 ( talk) 12:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I also propose to indicate the prequel to The Hobbit: namely The Quest of Erebor (albeit unfinished). Jungleboy63 ( talk) 13:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on The Hobbit. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Hobbit. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Simple issue on which version of the plot should be used.
This version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Hobbit&oldid=842601749
or this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Hobbit&oldid=842607232
For reference, this is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Hobbit&diff=842607232&oldid=842601749
Moonythehuman ( talk) 14:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Elphion reverted my capitalization change, having found an instance of "warg" in The Hobbit. Hence, the capitalization appears to be inconsistent. On the other hand, having found myriad instances of "Warg" and no other instance of "warg", I am left to wonder why the sole uncapitalized instance "wins". Strebe ( talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I tried to run down where Tolkien mentions the rule, but the indexes of the various works have not been helpful, and I haven't time to plough through HoME, UT, and Letters looking for something I'm no longer sure is even there. It's quite possible that I've internalized the rule mentioned a few times in various WP Tolkien talk pages, since several editors are observing it. And that, I think, is the crux of this discussion: it's not just about The Hobbit -- it runs through many, maybe even most of the Tolkien articles. I have no strong feelings one way or the other (believe it or not); I just want a simple rule we can all follow. You're talking about a change that touches the entire project, so the project talk page is the right place to address this. -- Elphion ( talk) 17:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to add above: Swedish varg is not in fact routinely capitalized -- not that that need bear much on what en:WP decides to do. Tolkien clearly borrowed the root, transforming it according to historical English sound changes (cf. Völundr, Weland). -- Elphion ( talk) 19:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
What about in an article that mentions both Hobbit and LoTR (like Warg (Middle-earth))? Saying that it's always capitalized in The Hobbit doesn't really solve the problem. As I said above, we need a project-wide methodology on this, and not just for wargs. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Guys, the Middle-earth articles number over 100, not counting the film side, covering characters, themes, places, poetry and other aspects separately: it makes no sense to try to cover everything in a high-level article on one book. There is a major article on J. R. R. Tolkien's influences; another on Gandalf, which also discusses influences on him; now people are wondering if we should include such matter here. I think that's simply not appropriate; there are far too many to include sensibly, and as it happens, the Kalevala is at most a minor and debatable influence on Gandalf (there's a stronger case for Tom Bombadil, actually, and from the same Kalevala character, Väinämöinen). The main influence on Gandalf is not the Kalevala but Norse mythology, as Gandalf is the image of Odin the wanderer, attested in reliable sources. But that isn't a matter for The Hobbit either. I've therefore cut the proposed discussion of the Kalevala and Gandalf from here. I do hope that's clear and acceptable to everybody. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Introductory paragraph on the Hobbit states Bilbo learns his romantic dude if nature, but there was no such "romance" in the book... I believe it is a wrong information, and could be looked into... 124.123.43.148 ( talk) 10:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There's no info about Soviet cartoon and TV adaptations of the book, but it is available in separate article about book's adaptations. Can someone transfer info from there to here? If simple copy-past is OK- I can do it. Gevorg89 ( talk) 11:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)