Talk:War of the Ring

	This redirect 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
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

This is a bit basic isn't it for a defining war? I'll try and write more soon, but I'm busy with work and doing the Star Trek pages too :) --Timo 14:44, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Picture?

the link to an image was recently removed because the image itself had been deleted. Not sure why this occured or if it is possible to find out what happened to the image?

I think this article does need a picture. Of course it is hard to illustrate the war itself, but covers of any of the games and/or the book History of Middle Earth book would be good if anyone has one. These images would be allowable under "liscencing: Covers: Board game cover or Book cover". Please upload and link if you have one (or two) - Waza 22:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted because it had unknown copyright status, which is now a criteria for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia. You can see the delete log at [1].

I hope you find the siege tower image I added to the conflict box suitable. This is the source, including disclaimers, fair use information, etc: [2] Grimhelm 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Box

I consolidated Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White as commanders into just Gandalf, as not only do the two links refer to the same person (though at different levels of power and authority), but they also redirect to the same article, which seems rather pointless and redundant to me. Grimhelm 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. That was just me going :P . --Kizor 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of not consolidating them would be the little cross thingy (to indicate that the commander died during the war). Gandalf the Grey died; Gandalf the White did not. If we are going to leave them consolidated we have to find a better way of noting that because its inaccurate to give him the same cross-thingy as everyone else.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is wrong

Apparently because of the limitations of the infobox, Saruman as a third party is not listed! Could someone fix it? 202.163.247.203 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saruman was officially allied with Mordor. While he was certainly doing so for his own purposes and was far from 'loyal' to Sauron it does not seem unreasonable to include him with the other opponents of the 'Free peoples' rather than as a third party. --CBDunkerson 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Eomer?

Why is Eomer not listed among the comanders? He became King of the Mark during the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, and led the men of the Mark in the assault on the Black Gate. He must be listed as a commander.

I believe one per army is enough... Else we should list both Dain's and Brand's sons, Imrahil, Gothmog and The Mouth of Sauron. I believe that would be too much. Bryan 13:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Why are there casualties listed for the armies of Good if they are unknown, and why are the strengths of the armies recorded if they are unknown? Either an estimate needs to be found somewhere in a primary source, or the listings need to be as unknown.

I don't get it

I've read Tolkien's foreword to the second edition, and there's one paragraph that i don't get. If anyone out there could clear this up, it would be great: "The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. if it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt; they would not long have survived even as slaves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.185.96.150 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - he's talking about how reviewers had said the War of the Ring ("the legendary war") resembled the Second World War ("the real war") - which he disagreed with, pointing out the relative moral shortcomings (in his opinion...I'm not gonna start treading on any POV toes here ;-) ) of WWII's commanders which, if they'd been in the command, he assumes would have used the Ring etc since they were willing to use other devastating weapons such as atomic bombs etc. The bit about Saruman - well, he's probably working out the 'realistic' way things would've worked out after the War in middle-earth ended, with Saruman taking advantage of the situation. There could even be a reference to the two superpowers of the Cold War having nuclear arsenals as their 'trump' weapons by having Saruman and "the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth" both have Rings - though Tolkien disliked allegories he's using this 'alternate' War of the Ring as an example of what the War would've been like if it *was* an allegory. The bits about Sauron being enslaved & Barad-dur occupied probably refer to the fact that the Allies absorbed a lot of scientists etc who'd worked for the Nazis into their own weapons programs, and so the Middle-earth equivalent would be to enslave Sauron etc, who after all knows his fair share about war. For more of his views on the Second World War, check out the Letters of JRR Tolkien - there's one particular letter where he says both the Allies & Axis powers "have orcs" among their commanding officers, for instance. - Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.195 (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mordor force.jpg

The image Image:Mordor force.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Conflict Template

So I have just noticed a bit of back and forth with an IP editor and GimliDotNet over the inclusion of Infobox Military Conflict template. Whilst I know that this is something that is usually included in factual articles, there is nothing (to my knowledge) that prevents it from being included in fictional articles is there? MisterShiney ✉ 09:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is a fictional article that is already in-universe. The info box is for summarising real world battles and wars, not for fan-cruft, unless the info box is dealing with real world information it has no place in this article. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude and sound abrupt, but do you have a policy against it's inclusion? I for one think it's a great way to summarise the key points which is the point of an info box and what this article was lacking. One could argue that the whole Lord of the Rings Middle Earth project is fan cruft and has no place on a factual encyclopedia. But it does, so key information should be easily accessible.

That link doesn't specify that they shouldn't be included. MisterShiney ✉ 09:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction.

, None of the information being added is essential to the understanding of the article. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that is a matter of opinion. It provides all they key information of the conflict, the purpose of the info box, and enables the reader to quickly able to access the information. The user was quite right in adding the box. MisterShiney ✉ 10:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only irrelevant, it is also factually incorrect. Double wammy of shite GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if is "factually" incorrect then be bold and make it factually correct. If you feel this information is "shite" then why are you even editing in the first place? MisterShiney ✉ 10:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have. And now we have an article that is even more crufty than it was before. Great work. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is crufty! lol. MisterShiney ✉ 11:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your third opinion, although I am not aware you asked for one. Gimli is correct. The guideline (not policy) is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, specifically the section WP:INUNIVERSE. That section warns against the problems of writing about fiction using real-world terms, including Using infoboxes intended for real world topics. Please remove the "Infobox Military Conflict" templates; they are outside the purview of a fictional event. If you would like to make infoboxes specifically for fictional conflicts, I would be happy to see it. You would need to abide by the guidelines set down in the Manual of Style I have already linked. The resulting infobox would not look the same as the one it replaces. But please do not edit war over this or anything, even if you believe that you are right. Elizium23 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reason as to why I added the Military conflict infobox is because that sometimes, it may be a little confusing for some LTOR fans as to who's on who's side hence I decided to add an infobox to clear up any confusion. I mean some Mankind realms (Harad and other Mankind mercenaries) are actually helping Sauron hence I think that should just be noted. Also in Battlefield 2 they have a Military infobox in the plot section hence I think that the War of the Ring section also needs an infobox. If you wish to delete the infobox then that's okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.227.137 (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Redirected as per [4].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

@Bkonrad: OK, I was confused by the actual anchor for the redirect.

So, is the primary topic

the (largely unused) title of Book V of LOTR, as suggested by the text of the anchor ('Book V: The War Of The Ring')?
The Return of the King, as suggested by the position of the anchor (just prior to the RotK heading)?
the whole conflict within LOTR, as suggested by the hatnote on The Lord of the Rings and the heading of War of the Ring (disambiguation)?

Because to me, they seem at odds with each other. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 19:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I only saw this turn up as in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review‎‎ and noticed that your edit created a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. Perhaps ask Chiswick Chap who made the redirect more specifically target the section.

If the target is the section heading, then the hatnote currently at the top of the article should be moved. Or the redirect should be changed back to target the article in general. I think if you want to target the disambiguation, you need to raise a move discussion. older ≠ wiser 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkonrad and Chiswick Chap: My preference is for the third option. Even if we limit War of the Ring to military action as a result of the re-emergence of the Ring, it goes back to the orcs rescuing Gollum in Mirkwood, and killing the elf guards, way before Frodo sets out. I therefore propose to move the anchor point to the head of The Lord of the Rings. I would also change the anchor text to just 'War of the Ring'. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 21:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to changing the anchor; the wording was simply the name of the now-commented-out section heading, when we had all six books visible. If it's to be the head of LOTR then no anchor is needed, but a surprise rescue is hardly war. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]