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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7 →

Contents 1 Article assessement 2 Reference has turned invalid 3 Synopsis rewrite? 4 Tolkien studies 5 Abbreviation 6 Category:Trilogies 7 Music 8 Relevant, but minor, references in popular culture 9 abbreviation (coincident meaning) 10 "Sentient" 11 "Synopsis" 12 Ringwraiths / Nazgûl 13 Reputable source? 14 Unfinished Tales and intertextuality 15 Character List 16 British English? 17 Plot Hole? 18 Why is "J.K. Rowling" listed as the author of Lord of the Rings? 19 Cite error

Article assessement

I put this at A-class for the Middle-earth WikiProject, and B-class for the others. People are welcome to do a GA nomination if they wish. I think the better approach is to work on the issues raised at the Featured Article Review and then resubmit it for FA in a month or so, but only if the work has been done. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It has multiple citation needed tags. DrKiernan (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference has turned invalid

Hi folks, just to inform those who are interested in editing, reference #22 returns HTTP 404.

Öncel Acar (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis rewrite?

Looking at the synopsis, I was wondering if it should be rewritten to show the events happening as they did in the books. For example, you might move the opening paragraph lower down (since this information isn't revealed right away).Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The synopsis is intended to explain the story rather than re-tell it. A readers experience of the synopsis doesn't have to replicate that of reading the books. We're not trying to replace the books. I've been thinking that we should remove the individual book divisions from the synopsis, and treat the narrative as one story, working in some of Appendicies stories - a sentence on what Aragorn was doing at the begining, Sam becoming leader of the shire etc. --Davémon (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien studies

The article makes a cursory mention of one article that criticized the movies as "dumbing down" Tolkien and creating a barrier to Tolkien studies. This is a really myopic representation of the field of Tolkien studies, which is expanding rapidly and contributing to the transformation of academia's understanding of LotR. See the Tolkien Studies journal, for one: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tolkien_studies/toc/tks1.1.html

If someone who has the time and inclination to research Tolkien Studies could do some more work on this, it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencimusprime (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Please stop reverting the addition of "(often abbreviated LotR)". If you doubt the validity of the claim, feel free to discuss it here, but I think you'll have a hard time arguing against 3,000,000 Google hits for "lord of the rings +lotr", the existence of an Lotr redirect since 2004, the consistent use of the abbreviation on this discussion page, and its frequent use on fan sites and in academic literature. DES (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the users contesting the addition. I don't think anyone doubts that the abbreviation is verifiably often used, rather the issue is a stylistic one with mentioning it in the opening sentence - it reads as rather fansitey to me. We don't tend to mention similar common abbreviations for other texts e.g. As You Like It. CIreland (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because AYLI is more commonly used in other, non-Shakespearean contexts? The bard gets only three out of the first ten Google hits for AYLI. For LotR, I gave up looking for non-Tolkien hits after ten pages. DES (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that you could have the "(often abbreviated LotR)" somewhere else in the article - having it in the first paragraph makes no sense. Fans of The Lord of the Rings will already know that it is abbreviated to that, and people who are interested in reading a Wikipedia article about it (or at least the first paragraph) won't want to know what's its abbreviated to. So, I would suggest moving it somewhere else on the article. Darth Newdar (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is wp:Trivial, and has no place in an encyclopedia, least of all in the first line of the lede. If it was significant, the abbreviation would be cited in reliable sources who would say something interesting about it. --Davémon (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing how a commonly used abbreviation has no place in a encyclopedia? HP, F1 etc, there are lots of... for reliable sources [1][2][3][4][5] I could go on. — CHANDLER^#10 — 11:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not important to the subject of "The Lord of the Rings" that its title gets abbreviated. HP or F1 or VAT or IRS or FBI or MI6 are a totally different case, they are more commonly known by their abbreviated version than their full names. A more relevant (in dealing with fiction) example would be STTNG which is nearly always abbreviated in certain circles, still the article does not need to mention the abbreviation. Without an actual citation to reliable source, then it doesn't belong here anyway. If you can find a source that says something interesting about the abbreviation, perhaps it's use in marketing, merchandising or fandom or somesuch, then it might deserve inclusion somewhere in the sections that deal with these topics. --Davémon (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, have it your way. I've had my fill. It seems you're more interested in picking semantic nits than in writing an encyclopedia. DES (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Trilogies

This article (I think) should not be in Category:Trilogies. According to the article on Trilogy, it is not a trilogy, though it is often referred to as such. Does being "often referred to as such" warrant it being in Category:Trilogies? I don't think so. So, if you approve, I'll remove it from that category. Darth Newdar (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a novel published in three volumes rather than a sequence of three novels. I don't see how it can be considered a trilogy. Thu (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed Category:Trilogies. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Music

Removed misinformation about Nightwish:

The Finnish symphonic power metal group Nightwish take much inspiration for their music from Tolkien's works, including the entire Wishmaster album, and many of their songs on later albums, including the cover of Gary Moore's "Over The Hills And Far Away".

Not a single word of truth. Wishmaster is not a concept album, and features only one song at least to mention a Tolkien's character. It is not even Tolkien-themed, as there are references to Dragonlance series, and other fantasy fiction. Over the Hills and Far Away is a song about a man tried for a roberry he didn't commit. It has no reference to Tolkien themes. Of all Nightwish songs, hardly two or three are Tolkien-inspired.--Garret Beaumain (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

More to the point it wasn't cited and is trivial. --Davémon (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevant, but minor, references in popular culture

I don't imagine that this is particularly notable, but there were at least two British publishing houses for 8-bit computer programs that took their names (possibly indirectly) from LotR: the games publisher M.C. Lothlorien and the Amstrad publisher Arnor. Loganberry (Talk) 01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! I should think that it counts. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

abbreviation (coincident meaning)

In czech LOTR means rogue / scoundrel / villain / varlet ... In czech FOTR means gaffer or pops. It originated from german Vater and sometimes it's rude to say it. You can be sure people noticed it. It might be enough just to let it here. Because it might be interesting trivia for some. 86.61.232.26 (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

LotR has been the abbreviation of the book's title since it came out in the fifties. It's an abbreviation of English words, why should the English Wikipedia care what other languages may interpret into the letters? We cannot check any combination of letters for its possible meanings in other languages. Cush (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sentient"

I take issue with the use of the word "sentient" in the introduction. When describing science fiction and fantasy, people often use the word "sentient" when what they actually mean is "sapient." Sentience refers to the ability to perceive, while sapience refers to human-like, advanced intelligence. Should the word be changed in the introduction, or should it be left alone considering its usual usage as a misnomer in literary parlance? I vote for changing it. --n-k, 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

People's Exhibit A (the sentence in question): The lands of Middle-earth are populated by Men (humans) and other humanoid races (Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs), as well as many other sentient creatures good and evil, such as Ents, Wargs, Balrogs, Trolls.

Yes, sentient is the wrong word. But this whole sentence is pretty bad. The structure is awful. And are not Ents and Trolls also humanoid? Are Balrogs "creatures"? Can we rewrite this in such a way that it doesn't end up being such a catalog, but reflects rather that many of the non-human animals of Middle-earth are capable of rational speech? Elphion (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: The lands of Middle-earth are inhabited by humans, a variety of humanoid species, and many non-human animals capable of rational speech. Elphion (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Elphion, and I like your suggestion. n-k, 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Elphion (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"many non-human animals capable of rational speech." This is wrong, there isn't a single talking animal in The Lord of the Rings, although there is a fox which thinks in English, he hardly counts as 'many'. --Davémon (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "many" may be is a bit enthusiastic; but it says "the lands of Middle-earth", not "The Lord of the Rings". There are at least the Eagles, the Wargs, and the Ravens; and the Eagles do speak in LotR. Also, the constant suspicion that the animals (especially the birds) are spying on them entails at least the belief that they could communicate. Elphion (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just think that to a reader unfamiliar with the text, the phrase "many non-human animals capable of rational speech" means the book is something like Doctor Dolittle, which is a bit misleading. This article is about The Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit (which has talking Spiders, Ravens, Wargs and purses too). I forgot Gwaihir! he talks - so I count 2 actual 'talking' animals in the book, and Bill the Pony could almost talk, according to Sam.

Suggestion: The lands of Middle-earth are inhabited a variety of peoples with their own distinct physiologies and cultures. --Davémon (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That goes too far the other way. It could be a book by Margaret Mead!

Suggestion: The lands of Middle-earth are inhabited by a variety of human and non-human peoples. Elphion (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it. --Davémon (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that, according to Middle-earth WikiProject, it should be written in past tense. By the way, considering Elphion made the suggestion on 27 May, is somebody actually going to change it? I like Elphion's last suggestion (apart from changing the tense). Darth Newdar (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According to wp:novel we should use present continuous tense (or whatever it's called) - the wp:me "let's put everything in past-tense because Tolkien used a narrative device whereby his stories are a feigned history" idea isn't currently upheld. --Davémon (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add it, but the sentence really doesn't belong in that paragraph at all -- it reads like it's just tacked on. So instead of changing it, I just removed it altogether. About tense: I'm not aware the project ever decided to switch to narrative present, and for consistency's sake there would now be an awful lot of text to change. Elphion (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Synopsis"

This synopsis, and especially its opening lines, follow the story of Peter Jackson's film, not JRR Tolien's trilogy. FOTR does not begin with scenes of Sauron forging the ring, nor with the story of Izildur, but with Bilbo's birthday... There's a problem there, I think. I will not edit for now - what do the others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.143.100.253 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is providing a synopsis of the plot rather than trying to recreate the dramatic form Tolkien created. If that is causing confusion then we need to address that issue. Other than the similarity to various adaptations (Peter Jackson, Ralph Bashki and Brian Sibley each begin with the forging of the Ring) is there a problem with the synopsis? --Davémon (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article's synopsis' first paragraph is a backstory, to explain to the person who does not know what happens in LOTR what's going on. And the second paragraph does say "The novel begins in the Shire, as Frodo Baggins inherits the ring from Bilbo...". Maybe the first paragraph could be re-phrased slightly to make the point that it is backstory? Darth Newdar (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That part of the article used to specify that it was the backstory. I don't know when that was changed or why, but it should be there. I've added it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So what's the difference between:

"In the backstory, prior to the start of the novel, Sauron forges the Ruling Ring of Power in Mordor."

and

"Prior to the start of the novel, Sauron forges the Ruling Ring of Power in Mordor."

(apart from the use of the script-writer's term "backstory", an ugly word that is out of place in discussing literary works)? Is your childhood a backstory? Does something have to be scripted for the screen before it becomes real?
Elphion (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not particularly attached to the use of the term "backstory" (though I also don't see it as a problem). But it does seem important to point out that although the incidents that came before form the basis of the story, they are not known to the characters as the story unfolds. Also, Tolkien did use previously written material as backstory (or whatever term you prefer); he had already written those other stories prior to writing the novel, and he drew from them as the novel took form.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made some changes and removed the "backstory" term. Does this work better?

The story takes place in the context of historical events in Middle-earth. In those histories, prior to the start of the novel and not known to the main characters, Sauron forges the Ruling Ring of Power in Mordor.

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found some more info on this, in the Return of the Shadow, one of the Christopher Tolkien books tracing the history of the Lord of the Rings and how it was written. It turns out that JRR Tolkien had not written the earlier history of the forging of the Rings prior to writing LOTR, that history was worked out during the writing of the main novel and changed as the novel was written. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That latest suggestion is excellent. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the characters know most of the earlier history of the ring (in fact the only thing that Gandalf, Aragorn and Saruman, don't know is that Bilbo's ring is the One Ring). The seems to be putting a lot of emphasis on something that is reasonably trivial to the plot.

Suggestion "Long years before the story begins, Sauron forged the One Ring etc."

Also do we need to include the forging of the 9 and the 3 in order to to explain the nazgul and the threat to the elves, or is this just too much detail which isn't really significant to the plot? --Davémon (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points. The thing I was trying to get across is that the hobbits (rather than the other characters) don't know about the Ring and its history at the start of the story. Although Gandalf and Aragorn are important characters, Frodo is the main protagonist, along with the other hobbits - they are the characters through which we see the story unfold. So it seems we should describe what those main characters know, so that their actions can be understood- that's how I would do it, then again, maybe it's not needed, or maybe it's not clear which are the main characters and we might need a reliable source to interpret that for us, if we want to address that properly.

As far as adding more detail, I like that idea. I think this synopsis was longer a while ago and has been made shorter over time. It seems too compressed to me, as it is now. There are also plot summaries in the articles about the individual volumes, but those are in even more detail, so maybe there can be a good middle ground here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I heavily re-edited the synopsis because it was far too long, and overly detailed, which was one of the reasons the article failed it's FA review, so the current version is largely my fault. I'm not trying to own it in any way, but will encourage brevity and linearity (not following the order of events as they are revealed in the novel) and inclusivity (integrating the Appendicies into the whole). The 'problem' created by the linear retelling of the plot is that people familiar with the work expect the summary to follow the structure of the work, so this in some way needs to be explained to them, in as simple a way as possible. That different characters know different things isn't really significant to the main plot (although it does cause Gandalfs imprisonment in Orthanc).

The level of detail just needs to be that the reader can make sense of the plot, we don't mention the Barrow-wights or the Woses (for example) because while they add depth and texture to the narrative they are incidental to the main thrust. I think that is the best measure of what to include in the synopsis and what to leave out. Why the One Ring has power and must be destroyed I think is significant for explaining the motives of all the main characters.

Also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate suggests a characters section, which could take a lot of the information burden out of the synopsis and keep it succinct. --Davémon (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ringwraiths / Nazgûl

In this article, the Nazgûl are consistently referred to as the Ringwraiths. Is this correct? I would of thought Nazgûl is the correct title for them. Darth Newdar (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nazgûl is the more commonly used word in the story, but Ringwraith is more descriptive for the novice reader, in my opinion. --Davémon (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reputable source?

Several of the current references are to a PDF from the Web (actually from the Web Archive) with no provenance, not even an author:

cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080227101341/http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/jkoeberl/Courses/Tolkien/l_04_genesis.pdf| title=The Lord of the Rings: Genesis|accessdate=2006-06-14|format=PDF

I'm not judging the information therein, but it would be nice to replace this with something more authoritative.
Elphion (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfinished Tales and intertextuality

I'm not sure it's encyclopedic to be introducing information from Unfinished Tales, The Hobbit or the Silmarillion into the description of the Lord of the Rings. I think the purpose of the Synopisis and Character summary is to cover the information given in the published work, rather than present an intertextual overview of various draft pieces and marginalia. Perhaps a separate section on what was edited out of LoTR for space reasons which was eventually published in UT would be good. Or am I being over-zealous? --Davémon (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but put it in the scope of other types of published works. Let's pick Star Trek. Now each series, and movie, is a separate published work. But if I was writing a description for the characters in Deep Space Nine, I would be remiss if I did not include information about Worf from TNG, despite it being a separate "published work."

In other words, a character who appears over multiple works evolves from each separate work to the next, and such information needs to be given to fully understand that character. Of course, it should be phrased so it is apparent that the specific information is not from LotR, but actually from The Hobbit or The Silmarillion.

The same with the story. The entire story of LotR would not occur without The Hobbit, so obviously some mention of it needs to be made. The same with The Silmarillion, some parts of LotR are obscure, even after several readings, and can explained with The Silmarillion.

All that being said, I find no reference to anything but LotR itself in the Synopsis or Characters sections anyway, so I see no problem with the article.

BAPACop (converse) 01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't find any because I removed references to Gandalf and Sauron being Maiar, which is in Unfinished Tales, from the "Main characters" section. But I added that in myself as well, since they were previously described as Maiar without elaboration. Uthanc (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Character List

Several other novels of this size on Wikipedia have not only a major character list, but a minor character list. Could we get one? It's much easier to find a random character if they have a name on the main page. I'm not talking about links to their own personal pages, but just a list of some of the more important minor characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.104.70 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a list hidden in the navbox at the bottom. I pointed this out in the main article. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

British English?

(I'm surprised that no one has noticed yet, but...)

This article is labelled as being written in British English, yet it is written in American English.

The "Lord of the Rings" originated in Britain and therefore bears strong cultural ties to the country. It is even exemplified as such under the Wikipedia Manual of Style ( See WP:BrE ) as "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation."

On these grounds I'm going to attempt to rectify the spelling variations within the article to British English standards. ( When I have time, that is.)

This is also my first post/attempt at editing on Wikipedia so if I mess up, sorry in advance. Gilly of III (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For -ise vs -ize read American and British English spelling differences#-ise.2C -ize. -ise isn't particularly British (being French in origin). I think when I last looked my British editions preferred -ize but they're not to hand at present. Thu (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Oxford English Dictionary specify -ize as the correct British spelling. Strange but true. --Spanglej (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the spelling changes as the top of the article clearly states "This article uses British English with Oxford Spelling". See MOS:SPELLING for further information. BabelStone (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I wasn't aware of the whole "Oxford English" spelling situation, sorry about that. I guess I got a little edit-happy. Next time I edit I'll wait for a reply in the discussion page first. Sorry guys. I guess on the bright-side, I learnt something new today :D. Gilly of III (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikpedia encourages contributors to boldly make changes. If they're incorrect it's easy to revert them. Please continue to both learn and make changes. Thu (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering this article is meant to be written in Oxford English, shouldn't the word be "mass-commercialization" rather than "mass-commercialisation"? I won't edit anything without any feedback, though. (I've embarrassed myself enough as it is. :p ) "Mass-commercialisation" is used under Reception, and the word "Industrialision" is used under the Influences section. Regards, Gilly of III (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, please do fix them. Thu (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This might seem a little convoluted/unnecessary, but, under the section Impact on Popular Culture the word "authorised" is used within quotation marks without specifically mentioning where it is quoted from. And even if it is quoted from a reputable source, it would seem unnecessary to include two forms of the word "authorised" within the same article without any apparent need. Without citation, and unless it forms part of a more substantial quote, I suggest the quotation marks be removed and the spelling be adjusted. (Using the word authorised without quotation is not plagiarism). I think I have confused myself. Anyway, sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes, but I actually like people correcting me, so feel free to if you want. Oh, and thanks for the feedback, Thu. Regards, Gilly of III (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of LotR handy? A British edition, just to be sure. See whether Tolkien uses "ise" or "ize" etc. and use that form in the article. My own impression is that "ize" is very much going out of fashion in the UK, but would have been far more likely to have been used in the 1950s, when Tolkien was writing. The question is, did he? ðarkuncoll 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

All my books are still in boxes following a move. The first I came to is the one volume Guild Publishing 2nd edition HB.

Ah yes, I recognized the name. I recollect the time when young Frodo Baggins was one of the worst young rascals of Buckland. (A Short Cut To Mushrooms)

one that was founded long before even the Brandywine was crossed and the Shire colonized. (At The Sign of the Prancing Pony)

Suddenly Frodo realized that it reminded him of Gandalf. (The Mirror of Gladriel)

I think that confirms the preferred suffix is -ize. Thu (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot Hole?

Every time I read the book or see the films there seems a glaring hole in the LoTR plot. Gandalf is imprisoned on the tower of Isengard by Saruman and eventually escapes via a giant eagle. Later the council meet and decide that the ring must be destroyed, Frodo will take it to Mordor and a fellowship will help him. At the end the eagles come to rescue Frodo and bring him off the collapsing Mount Doom. So why is it that the Council don't decide at the beginning to send Frodo and Sam (or others) by eagle to Mount Doom (a matter of hours, it would seem) and have done? Why the long and dangerous hoik by foot when quick, personal and quasi magical creatures await?

What d'you think? (Yes, with that plot it would be a very short and much duller book). --Spanglej (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the place for such questions, but to answer anyway it's because the skies to the east are infested with agents and spies of Sauron. I think it's even explicitly pointed out somewhere in the book. ðarkuncoll 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien address this point in Letters 210 when identifying the faults in Zimmerman's adaption. Thu (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is "J.K. Rowling" listed as the author of Lord of the Rings?

Sorry, I'm a newbie, and have never made a Wikipedia comment, but I thought this was worthy of comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.78 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You were correct, but it was changed back to Tolkien just two minutes after it was changed to Rowling! Darth Newdar ^talk 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite error

This page seems to return "cite error" when accessed. Im not sure as to why this might be happening - maybe a <ref> tag has been opened but not closed properly but I am notsure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye33 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous reversion left a dangling <gallery> tag in place. Fixed now. Elphion (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)