Talk:The Fall of Gondolin

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

Untitled[edit]

This article still needs work, which I will get to when I have some more time. -- User:Alcarillo 17:15 26 Apr 2004 UTC

done User:Alcarillo 17:35 26 Apr 2004 UTC

The article is incorrect. "Unfinished Tales" does not include a description of the fall of Gondolin. It includes a chapter called "Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin" which is an unfinished version of "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin." The tale ends with Tuor delivering Ulmo's warning to Turgon.

Feel free to jump right in and change it, remember to be bold. TPK 23:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I apologize. I am mistaken. The article is correct.

Wrong category?[edit]

Why does this article appear on the Middle-earth battles category page? It is clearly about the literary work, not the battle itself. --Barnikel 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Middle-earth battles category is appropriate, although the addition of say the "The History of Middle-earth" may be appropriate. My reasoning is that although it appears as an independent story in the lost tales book, it is also referred to in several of his other texts (primarily The Silmarillion) as one of the great battles - and an extremely significant event - of the First Age.
You make a good point though and perhaps the article should be tweaked to better represent the wider context of the battle in the history of Middle-earth? At the moment, the article does seem to focus on technicalities regarding Tolkien's literal accounts of the Fall of Gondolin, neglecting almost any details (apart from a solitary sentence) of the actual battle itself and the outcome's effects on Middle-earth. Canderra 20:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One article on the battle (with a nice info box), and one on the literary history (which is complex) would be great. The former can then be categorised separately from the latter, though both should go in Category:The History of Middle-earth. The titles of the articles would be interesting. I suspect The Fall of Gondolin (currently a redirect) is best for the work, and Fall of Gondolin for the battle (compare to War of the Ring), but I'm not sure about this. Carcharoth 13:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think doing such would probably be the best idea. Although it would have to be made clear to the reader the existence of each article and wiki-links from within other articles would have to be checked to make sure they point to the most appropriate article. I would like to write a greater account on the actual battle and it's aftermath, as I feel the loss of the princple Elven stronghold of the north was one of the most important events of the First Age, however I'm revising for university exams atm so will try and contribute some more in a month or so. Canderra 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main image[edit]

I couldn’t find copyright data, or licence info. This may be an oversight. Please take the time to check and provide information to demonstrate that this image is suitable for use on Wikipedia. Thank you Edaham (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a copyrighted image of a commercially sold book cover. It needed an WP:NFUR since it is non-free. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the required data. Edaham (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Gondolin → The Fall of Gondolin – The official name of the upcoming book is The Fall of Gondolin. Automatic move to redirect failed because it was edited. Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smeagol 17 and 70.51.203.56: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to speedy move The current article is not about the upcoming book. It is about the story and fictional event. This story has already been published and been in print for many decades. If the purpose of this move is to convert the article into a book article, this should be discussed in a full move request. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, revert to this version and create a new article for the 2018 book at The Fall of Gondolin. --woodensuperman 12:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move (not a speedy one, of course). Currently, the tale of Beren and Lúthien and the recent book entitled Beren and Lúthien share a single article. By that precedent, the story of the fall of Gondolin and the book The Fall of Gondolin should also share a single article. So unless we are splitting up B&L into two articles, we need to keep this as a single article. — Lawrence King (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It makes sense to make this the article for the book. A "Publication history" section can note/explain its origins and the fact that it has been published in a shorter form in various longer works before. I understand the contention that there could be an article about just the Fall of Gondolin story, but I don't think it makes sense to have one: The book will likely be considered the definitive version of the fictional events. --MattMauler (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ::The article is about both the book and the previously published story. Which ever way it should still be titled The Fall of Gondolin as it is never referred to as Fall of Gondolin, which is not even grammatically correct.Dyolf87 (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Original research?[edit]

These two images have a user-created attribution, so would seem to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, as they do not have enough references to determine that they have little original creation and are mostly based from descriptions within the corpus of the work. I cannot read the Elvish, so I can't even get into what that says. From what I recall of the story, I don't remember it giving details as shown in these images.

If they are as I suspect, OR, then they should be removed from the articles on Wikipedia. (they can be used on WikiProjects or elsewhere). If they are copied out of a book, then that attribution would be needed, and if the uploader was the illustrator that created them in the book, then an WP:OTRS should be attached to them, showing that it wasn't pay for work (where they don't hold title) and they hold title (without restriction to uploading it as they have, such as under publishing contract)

If these are something out of some version of Tolkien's archives, then they are copyright violations, unless shown to be somehow have aged out of copyright. My own copy of this story wasn't illustrated, so it certainly isn't in all copies of hte published versions.

-- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon doing some research this appears to be OR and uploaded by the user to promote their own work. It should be removed. Dyolf87 (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any original research here as these are events that were published in the Silmarillion, and an artist's impression of a scene from literature does not count as original research. That aside, Tom Loback was a notable artist who has been published in Tolkien journals like Vinyar Tengwar, Mythlore and others [1][2], book cover. De728631 (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Tom Loback was ever a notable artist or not is not the point. This is an encyclopaedic article, this images add nothing encyclopaedic to the article and serve only to promote the artist. Dyolf87 (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to disagree. It shows that the topic, i.e. The Fall of Gondolin, has inspired professional artists to create their own rendition of the events narrated by Tolkien long before Alan Lee was contracted to illustrate the new book edition. I would agree though to remove one of the Loback images from the article as two of these are in fact a bit too much. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Question: Are any other Wikipedia articles illustrated with non-commercial non-famous artistic creations? The George Washington article is illustrated with a painting, but it's a famous painting by a famous artist. The Raiders of the Lost Ark article is illustrated with a painted movie poster, and the Unfinished Tales article is illustrated with a painted dust jacket, but these are commercial products used under fair use. Many articles are illustrated with amateur photos taken by Wikipedians (e.g., Alyson Hannigan), and these are permitted (not banned for "self-promotion"). Yet the two illustrations we are debating here are not quite parallel to any of these categories. They are creations of User:Tttom and do not seem to be commercial or famous. They aren't copyright violations since Tttom has given permission to use them. They don't exactly fit the WP:OR ban. Dyolf87 argues that they are a form of self-promotion, and if that's the case they should be removed, but it's not clear they are -- I had to dig down to find out who made them, and the file pages don't seem to link to the artist's website or anything like that. So I think the question we need to ask is: Do any other articles use non-commercial non-famous artwork along these lines? — Lawrence King (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is quite common for Middle-earth articles and other topics. These are some ME examples:
It should be noted that Tttom in particular dedicated an entire category of images to Commons.
Non-Middle-earth articles include Fermi paradox, Little green men, Cthulhu, Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons), Gnoll, List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then speaking for myself, I have no objection to this. If Tttom wants to donate his own time and talents to providing illustrations for Wikipedia articles, then no rules are being violated. He doesn't appear to be using this for commercial purposes, he isn't violating any reasonable interpretation of the ban on "original research", and there's no copyright violation in either direction. Of course, editors are free to remove these illustrations from articles if they believe they don't contribute to the overall quality of the article, but that's true of everything in every Wikipedia article. — Lawrence King (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jan 2023 - those articles' paintings have been removed. 2603:6080:21F0:7880:A418:996B:CC89:8D2C (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's of no consequence; whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or not is irrelevant. But the project decided long ago that using the images is reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full, partial, and book-length versions[edit]

We say that the 1917 "remains the only full account ..."; "A partial later version ... shows a great expansion". And now we have the first stand-alone version.

Here I believe "full account" means complete in scope, altho perhaps sketchy; the only version that takes the story from beginning to end. And that is so because the "great expansion" --altho it produces a full account as I would say it-- is incomplete in scope; in particular, it stops before the end of the story.

Does the 1917 remain the only full/complete account late in 2018, after publication of the book? --P64 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Gondolin here[edit]

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.
The result of this discussion was Merge.Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for Gondolin to have a separate article. There is a lot of overlap between these two articles, and it will remove the in-universe quality to the Gondolin article if it is merged to the work of fiction it comes from.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Gondolin as a fictional location isn't notable enough to justify its own article, based on it only being "introduced" by way of previously unpublished story notes. I know there are Tolkien fans who debate the canonicity of the posthumous released (Silmarillion excluded) so I won't get into that, but unless more writings surface, or maybe it becomes incorporated into the upcoming Lord of the Rings TV show, I don't see a need for a unique article at this point in time. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gondolin and its fall are of course referenced in The Hobbit and we learn its residents were Elrond's kinsmen. That line alone shows that the ideas were not fully fleshed out then, since later revisions put Elron's father as one of those who escaped from Gondolin, and so his use of kinsmen for his father being among the escapees, or the fact that his grandfather, who was man not elf, was one of the most noble fighters in its rescue, is key. If The Fall of Gondolin had run longer or been more involved, I might see a worth in keeping this article. Still, basically all we know of Gondolin comes from mentions of its destruction, or echos thousands of years after the fact, that are mere name checking. It appear the LotR TV show will largely be set in the 2nd age (possibly connected to Sauron and the forging of the rings of power), and Gondolin fell in the 1st age, when Sauron was merely a servant of Morgoth. So while we may find Elrond or others deriving information from Gondolin and its fall, and we may even see flashbacks to it, it seems unlikely to be central enough to establish the city as a notable location. However since the TV show has not began production, not even the writers probably yet can be sure how much Gondolin will be in it, so maybe. But we know not the future, and can only judge on the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Hidden Way" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hidden Way. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Caragdûr" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Caragdûr. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#Caragdûr until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Caragdur" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Caragdur. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#Caragdur until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fall_of_Gondolin&oldid=1203409973"