620:, we have the leeway to decide how to best present the series. The three book breakdown is a bit of a publisher's formality, as it was intended to be a single volume, but of course you're not going to sell a single, 3,000 page book. I note that the main page could certainly absorb the others without crowding; the LoTR page has only 43kb of prose, well under the 100k max we prefer. Creating a single subsection for each of the three books would make a complete article that was not overly crowded. Most of the sources (even on the subpages) discuss the series as a whole, rather than as individual books. I also note that the main page receives some 5-10 times the page views as the subpages. I see no need for us to maintain several poor pages, when we could simply maintain one good page and have the same end result: our readers become well informed about LoTR. Combined with issues of context, I agree that having standalone pages is unnecessary. I would urge others reading this not to reflexively vote keep, but instead consider that our duty is create an excellent encyclopedia, and that having a certain number of pages is less useful to our readers than having concise and accessible content. Smooth sailing,
1061:- The novel articles are in poor shape, and it's very unlikely they'll be drastically improved any time soon. Regardless if you view it as a singular book or a trilogy, the three are child articles of "The Lord of the Rings." Even if you're of the opinion that all three have the potential to stand on their own, I can't see any harm in upmerging them. It'll either draw more traffic to the main article and allow for it to reach GA/FA status eventually, or it'll incubate those articles until such a time they aren't just a plot summary and two reviews each.
1255:
tries to create self-contained episodes, whereas the first two novel volumes end in cliffhangers. The movie trilogy is really an adaptation of LOTR as a whole. It uses the titles used by
Tolkien for the three volumes as published, but the individual movies are not adaptations of the individual volumes because the storyline of each is quite different. Because of this, it's wrong to argue that because the movie version is a trilogy the book version must be a trilogy, as the three movie instalments don't actually correspond to the three book volumes.--
1489:, But how is it a notable part of the franchise? Why a standalone for each "book" (even though they are all one book) and not a singular article that could cover the series in context? And as I said earlier, the entry on the list of best selling books is "Lord of the Rings" not any one of the individual titles, which are publishers formalities (as a footnote on the bestselling books page mentions).
1180:: For people who are open to a merge discussion but think AfD is the wrong venue, I think it would be helpful if you made that clear in your vote, with something along the lines of "Procedural Keep...but open to merge discussion". (I don't see the reason why we can't hash out how best to handle the articles here at AfD, but I admit I don't have much experience with merge/deletion discussions.)
865:
1104:-- in summary style, the LOTR entry would provide an overview of all three, and then additional pages on the individual books would provide a space for a level of detail that exceeds what would be reasonable in the main article, such as longer plot summaries. However, other than plot summaries, I'm not sure what would
1222:
next in a way that compels treating them as new books. The same actually applies to the films, since they were all filmed at once. I know the size and popularity and existence of three titles compels people to see these as three works, but they can just as easily be seen as 6 works, and are at root just one work.
743:
this merge, but some care may be needed to ensure the right tweaks are made, plus some updating of the incoming links would be useful). I would suggest that if the result here is merge (or even no consensus) that a post-AfD discussion is continued at the appropriate article talk page on how best to handle this.
1583:
issues, splitting it among volumes would also make sense. I just don't think we're there right now. I think the best thing we can do today is to redirect the three volumes to one main page, and put the content onto the page and develop it, and at some point in the future, when the page grows too big,
1239:
I wonder if there have ever been examples of translating only one of the books. My understanding is that originally the LotR movies by
Jackson were meant to only be 2. It is also of note that the 1970s animated film movie covered everything in one film all the way to the Battle of Helm's Deep, so not
1144:
The books each got ample review when they were first released months apart from one another. The reception section of each article could be expanded if anyone can find old sources from back then. Look at how popular the Hobbit was and it came out in 1937 and then these three books came out in 1954.
1254:
Jackson's movie trilogy breaks up the story differently to the book version. In the book the "breaking of the
Fellowship" is split between "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers". The capture of Frodo by orcs is split between "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King". The movie version
404:
I mean, I hear you, and appreciate the bold idea, but there are three books, and each of the books is notable in its own right. If there's significant overlap between this and the Lord of the Rings article, then the more reasonable approach would be to have that focus more on the series as a series
1221:
My experience is that deletion discussions get more attention and more action than a merge discussion ever can. These books were written as a unit. At times they are published as a unit (my copy is one large volume. The breaks are internal book breaks, there is no actual change from one book to the
742:
per nom and
CaptainEek, Chiswick Chap and Jack Upland and others, but reserve the option to split out again if elements focused on the individual works become large enough. Some consideration is also needed on how to handle sales figures and meta-data (e.g. I know Wikidata can be tweaked to reflect
636:
I would urge others reading this to not reflexively vote merge, as this is the wrong venue. You and
Chiswick Chap have good arguments for merging, but these belong on the talk pages, where all the editors watching the articles can see them, not just the masochistic few who choose to participate at
493:
Well I wonder. I hear all the instant reflex Keep !votes, but the 3 articles are all neglected and it's hard to see what they're actually for - there's the main LOTR article (pretty good), 3 scrappy unmaintained "book" articles, lots of character, place, and artefact articles (in need of work, and
517:
But merge is keep. The merge discussion has to be proposed on the pages that will be merged. It is a different process and if AfD has consensus to merge then the admin closing the AfD keeps the page and someone else has to go and propose the merge. An agreed merge would indeed involve a redirect
316:
article? An article with just a handful of references, that mostly conists of an overly-long plot summary, that barely touches on the things a reader would want to learn about, like the work's development, themes, influences, etc.? Wouldn't it be better for them to wind up at the comprehensive
460:
and perhaps we can make this a Snow Close? What you are suggesting has merit, but deletion is not the right way to go here. You should have a merger discussion as that is what you are actually proposing. Deletion is only concerned with notability and the books pass on those grounds. --
897:– per nom. It’s one novel, best for the reader to present all info on the novel on one page to the extent possible. Plus these three spin off pages are essentially just extended plot summaries. Better to merge for now; it can always be split again if it grows unsizable in the future.
1121:
novels. (Although readers encountering them later almost certainly do apply "trilogy" expectations to them.) So although I came here scoffing at the idea of a delete for such a famous book, I now think a merge to LOTR, deleting the individual book articles, is the most appropriate.
616:. While this is at AfD, it is clearly more of a merge discussion. However, I support it being at AfD (due to how contentious this will be) instead of left to rot on the talk pages. A bold nomination, but I must agree. The subpages are mostly plot, with little actual sourcing. Per
1570:
I also agree that a shorter, better article could be drafted in place of what's there now, but I sincerely think that it's better for our reader to have one regular-sized page that talks about the book and all three volumes, rather than having three short pages. (Per
1555:
I totally agree with you that a lot of the plot summary absolutely needs to go. However, I do think that an (albeit shorter) article can be crafted around what we have here. Just because the article is in horrible shape right now doesn't mean that it needs to go.
1197:. I'm all for deleting Tolkien-cruft such as explaining the details of individual battles or a list of elves by name, but this is just silly. This is pretty much the main point in the entire franchise. All three books have been notable for about half a century now.
298:
1116:
The Two Towers independently, for example. The fact that the books were published within months of each other is very different from how contemporary series work; unlike with the movies for example, hardly anybody really had a chance to react to them as
869:
Simply because the book is often sold in separate volumes does not make it a trilogy. Charles
Dickens' novels were first published as serials. Simply because the Jackson movie version was a trilogy is not particularly relevant. He also filmed
1331:
applies here. Yeah, maybe its not at the ideal forum. But its here, and we can solve the problem here and now. Closing this, just to open a merge discussion, that is covering the same exact issue? Seems an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy.
1278:. A merge discussion could take place in the appropriate venue if necessary (though at least on the surface of it, I think I would vote against a merge as well) but for the purposes of this AFD, the standalone articles should be kept. —
933:
The more I see, the more I'm tempted by merge, but I'm reminded of the words: "One Page to rule them all, One Page to find them, One Page to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them", and wouldn't want this movement to go too far.
1453:, The list of best selling books lists it as a single book, not three separate volumes. What is your point? This isn't about deleting things altogether, but rather merging into one singular article, which would be more accessible.
206:
281:
is with a single article, even though, like LotR, it's very long and was originally published in multiple volumes.) Just look at the sources, and how they largely focus on the work as a whole and not individual volumes:
405:
without getting into the specifics of the individual books -- as each book has more than enough to say about it to make its own article. So, yeah, this is a definite keep for me, but again appreciate the bold idea.
321:
article, which covers everything in the FotR article plus lots more? Of course the three sub-articles could be expanded over time, but, in the end, is there a compelling reason for them to exist in the first place?
1538:
notable, including the nom. Keep voters completely ignoring PAGEDECIDE as mentioned in the nom. But I think this is why having merge discussions at AfD isn't always a good idea. Probably should've been done by RfC.
339:
309:
article is, and compare it to how under-developed the articles about the individual volumes are. If a reader types "Fellowship of the Ring" into
Knowledge, do we really want them to wind up at the start-class
52:. There is clearly very strong consensus against deletion. There is no clear consensus as to whether the articles should be merged and redirected but, as has been pointed out, that can be decided elsewhere.
1602:
I don't think there's much that could be said about the three volumes that wouldn't better said in one article. The characters are the same; the plot is continuous; criticism etc is of the whole work.--
1516:
and the individual five books even though, tradition holds that they were composed as one unit and they are more commonly published as a unit than individually. There are times for content forks.
764:, RS consistently describe LOTR as a trilogy not as a novel ("There is no trilogy"? According to whom? RS treat it as such, and we're not art critics, we're WP editors relying on those same RS).--
700:: There is no trilogy; there are no three books. It is written as a single novel, and often published as one volume. Within the novel there are six books, originally published in three volumes.--
1357:
Aside from the (overly detailed) plot summaries, there's very little meaningful content that's unique to the individual volumes. The whole thing can easily be covered in the main article.
637:
AfD. AfD definitely should not be wielded as a sword of
Damocles to force a merge discussion. Let's not turn AfD into a general drama board for all manner of contentious article edits. --
200:
671:
issues, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. There are some incidents of books meant to be published together having a single article (I and II Samuel share
159:
839:
359:
1411:. Each published volume is notable and is cited in its own right. I'm dismayed by the amount of energy devoted to deleting articles, where will it end? One article
838:: I agree with MattMauler that this is treated as a trilogy by everyone except maybe Jack Upland, I guess. The movie adaptation was released as three movies -- see
286:
132:
127:
760:: What Tolkien intended is well documented, but the books were released separately, reviewed separately, are (most often) sold as separate books to this day.
381:
136:
916:
None of these article have demonstrated the need to be split from the main topic. The main article's plot summary could be extended but the rest is redundant.
440:
OK, it looks like this nomination is about all three books. My assertions are the same for all three books, and my recommendation is keep for all of them. --
119:
106:
91:
166:
275:
as one novel, split into multiple volumes, and I believe that's the easiest and best way to talk about the work. (Just like the best way to talk about
478:
as per above as well. The articles are clearly notable and just need some clean up and then they'll be golden. My assertion is for all three articles.
1512:
This then makes it a content fork issue. I would say this is a valid content fork, since there is coverage of the three books as separate. We have
295:
532:
An AfD can decide on merge as an outcome, though this one clearly won't. But you're right, the matter can be pursued outside this narrow forum.
289:
1294:
Which is why I think we need to reform the system. Deletion debates have much better changes of coming to people's attention than merge ones.
917:
878:
article, understandably, treats it as one novel. There is a continuous story, and the volumes cannot be understood as standalone volumes.--
1534:
and yet it's listed as one book. I also love how nearly every keep !voter is arguing that "it's notable" when nobody is arguing that it's
675:), but there isn't a precedent that that has to be done. I don't see a strong enough reason to combine three books that all easily pass
221:
188:
1080:
1530:
This isn't one of those times. There isn't enough content to justify forking–it's all extended plot summary. Love the point about
1497:
1461:
1340:
1005:
628:
494:
they're getting attention now from me and others). Deletion may be a wee bit drastic but it's not absurd; of course we'd want to
1372:
867:
123:
86:
79:
17:
182:
1611:
1595:
1565:
1550:
1525:
1500:
1481:
1464:
1445:
1424:
1403:
1343:
1319:
1303:
1289:
1264:
1249:
1231:
1213:
1189:
1172:
1136:
1092:
1070:
1047:
1030:
1008:
948:
928:
908:
887:
855:
830:
807:
790:
773:
752:
734:
709:
692:
649:
631:
600:
573:
541:
527:
507:
488:
470:
452:
412:
393:
371:
351:
331:
61:
921:
421:
1108:
on these individual book pages. I actually think it would be difficult to find coverage to satisfy notability criteria
178:
819:. If you want to make the plot summary more concise or do other edits, that's fine, but that's not what AfD is for. —
100:
96:
1531:
1433:
1146:
239:
115:
67:
424:; proposed content rearrangements and merges are best discussed on the talk pages of their respective articles. --
228:
1646:
1299:
1245:
1227:
924:
are likewise duplicates and merge targets: the volumes do not need separate pages just to give a longer summary.
861:
389:
40:
559:. The three books are all notable. Why not discuss this with involved and uninvolved editors on the talk pages?
1185:
367:
347:
327:
537:
503:
1383:
312:
251:
1642:
1607:
1579:
be written about LOTR that splitting the main LOTR page would make sense, and if we did split it due to
1314:
1284:
1260:
1042:
883:
875:
705:
644:
613:
447:
431:
409:
305:
194:
36:
659:. Just because the trilogy could be covered at one article, doesn't mean it has to be. Easily passes
1572:
1360:
1295:
1241:
1223:
1088:
769:
748:
617:
385:
258:
958:
You reminded me of this ditty I wrote up the other day, on an unrelated, yet quite applicable, note:
1368:
1181:
1024:
942:
851:
594:
567:
523:
466:
363:
343:
323:
214:
1590:
1580:
1561:
1545:
1521:
1472:
My point is that this is a notable part of the franchise. IMO it deserves a stand alone article.
903:
786:
730:
688:
533:
499:
480:
292:
1477:
1441:
1328:
1076:
803:
668:
283:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1641:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1603:
1324:
1309:
1279:
1256:
1150:
1132:
1101:
1038:
879:
825:
701:
640:
443:
427:
406:
1507:
1490:
1469:
1454:
1395:
1333:
1275:
1084:
998:
863:
846:, the current state of the article does not diminish the article subject's notability. --
765:
744:
676:
672:
660:
621:
1308:
Maybe so, but that's still not a good reason to bring an issue to the incorrect forum. —
1382:. These books are independently notable and of literary significance. Merging hists of
1364:
1018:
953:
936:
847:
843:
816:
588:
561:
519:
462:
245:
1436:
of all time. AfD is not for cleanup. This is very notable in regard to the franchise.
1586:
1557:
1541:
1517:
1420:
1210:
1066:
925:
899:
782:
726:
684:
680:
664:
57:
1486:
1473:
1450:
1437:
799:
153:
1123:
820:
1388:
798:
and spend time improving the articles instead of talking about deleting them.
277:
1416:
1198:
1062:
380:
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
53:
1035:
Nice! AfD needs less vitriol and more poetry. Thank you for that. --
265:
a topic and that there are times when it's better to cover a topic
1513:
267:
as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.
717:: It is a single work with relatively unimportant subdivisions;
340:
list of
Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
255:
for deletion. Has a palantír driven me mad? No, let me explain:
1637:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1112:; I don't think I've ever seen literary scholarship discussing
922:
Reception_of_J._R._R._Tolkien#Reviews_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings
263:
editors should consider how best to help readers understand
1149:
of all times. So a lot has been written about each book.
420:
An obviously notable book. AFD is not for cleanup, per
149:
145:
141:
988:
One ring to bring them all and in the AfD delete them,
213:
1575:.) I also agree that in theory, there is enough that
968:
Seven for the vandal fighters with their bot of clue,
683:
into one article on the trilogy just because we can.
984:
One ring to verify them all, one ring to cite them,
1100:- I think the strongest argument for a "keep" is
840:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1649:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1415:? I'm seriously considering closing my account.
1240:all adaptations have followed the 3 works break.
358:Note: This discussion has been included in the
338:Note: This discussion has been included in the
360:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
972:Nine for draft writers doomed to be unnotable,
860:A lot of people don't agree this is a trilogy.
976:One for the dark Jimbo on his open talk page,
227:
8:
1145:The Lord of the Rings is at the top of the
842:. This is obviously a notable work, and per
586:if the AfD criteria have not been met here.
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1358:
667:. Cleanup is needed, especially with the
379:
357:
337:
721:to a table of chapters/books/volumes/ in
555:for the purposes of this AfD, or open to
518:being created. Thus my comment above. --
992:In the Knowledge where the articles lie.
980:In the Knowledge where the articles lie,
382:list of content for rescue consideration
1016:Thanks. I really needed a laugh today.
266:
262:
964:Three rings for the admins under ANI,
7:
918:Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings
612:and of course leave redirects, to
303:Now look at how comprehensive the
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
1375:) 20:09, February 2, 2020 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
762:Moreover, and most importantly
1:
1584:it can be split out again. –
1079:about this discussion on the
436:20:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1612:00:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
1596:23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1566:23:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1551:23:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1526:22:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1501:22:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1482:22:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1465:22:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1446:22:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1425:19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1404:16:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1344:20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
1320:13:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
1304:01:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
1290:18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1265:23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1250:16:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1232:16:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1214:08:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1190:08:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1173:02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1137:00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1093:22:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1081:WikiProject Novels talk page
1071:19:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1048:22:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1031:20:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1009:20:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
949:19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
929:19:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
909:14:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
888:03:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
856:01:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
831:01:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
808:18:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
791:14:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
774:13:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
753:13:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
735:12:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
710:07:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
693:04:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
650:01:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
632:01:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
601:21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
574:21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
542:09:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
528:23:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
508:21:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
489:21:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
471:21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
453:21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
413:20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
394:11:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
372:20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
352:20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
332:20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
271:Tolkien conceived and wrote
62:12:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1666:
1532:List of best-selling books
1434:List of best-selling books
1147:List of best-selling books
496:merge and redirect to LOTR
240:The Fellowship of the Ring
116:The Fellowship of the Ring
68:The Fellowship of the Ring
1639:Please do not modify it.
781:: As per the other bob.
32:Please do not modify it.
1384:historical revisionism
313:Fellowship of the Ring
252:The Return of the King
876:The Lord of the Rings
614:The Lord of the Rings
422:WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP
306:The Lord of the Rings
80:Articles for deletion
1274:I fully agree with
1376:
1363:comment added by
1296:John Pack Lambert
1242:John Pack Lambert
1224:John Pack Lambert
1129:
1011:
995:
960:
829:
498:instead, really.
486:
396:
374:
354:
319:Lord of the Rings
273:Lord of the Rings
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
1657:
1594:
1593:
1549:
1548:
1511:
1495:
1459:
1413:Books by Tolkien
1402:
1400:
1393:
1338:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1127:
1126:
1046:
1027:
1021:
1003:
997:
962:
957:
945:
939:
907:
906:
823:
648:
626:
597:
591:
570:
564:
487:
485:
483:
451:
435:
232:
231:
217:
169:
157:
139:
77:
34:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1647:deletion review
1589:
1585:
1544:
1540:
1505:
1491:
1455:
1396:
1389:
1387:
1334:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1124:
1077:neutral message
1075:I have place a
1036:
1025:
1019:
999:
943:
937:
902:
898:
725:would be good.
673:Books of Samuel
638:
622:
595:
589:
568:
562:
481:
479:
441:
425:
237:I'm nominating
174:
165:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1663:
1661:
1652:
1651:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1427:
1406:
1377:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1234:
1216:
1192:
1182:WanderingWanda
1175:
1139:
1095:
1073:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1013:
1012:
994:
993:
990:
989:
986:
985:
982:
981:
978:
977:
974:
973:
970:
969:
966:
965:
961:
959:
911:
892:
891:
890:
874:as a trilogy.
833:
810:
793:
776:
755:
737:
712:
695:
654:
653:
652:
606:
605:
604:
603:
577:
576:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
491:
473:
455:
415:
398:
397:
376:
375:
364:WanderingWanda
355:
344:WanderingWanda
324:WanderingWanda
246:The Two Towers
235:
234:
171:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1662:
1650:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1635:
1634:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1592:
1588:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1573:WP:PAGEDECIDE
1569:
1568:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1547:
1543:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1509:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1496:
1494:
1488:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1428:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1401:
1399:
1394:
1392:
1385:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1356:
1353:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1337:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1238:
1235:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1148:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1120:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1022:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1002:
996:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
955:
952:
951:
950:
947:
946:
940:
932:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
915:
912:
910:
905:
901:
896:
895:Merge to LOTR
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
868:
866:
864:
862:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
834:
832:
827:
822:
818:
814:
811:
809:
805:
801:
797:
794:
792:
788:
784:
780:
777:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
741:
740:Merge to LOTR
738:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:Merge to LOTR
713:
711:
707:
703:
699:
698:Merge to LOTR
696:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
651:
646:
642:
635:
634:
633:
630:
627:
625:
619:
618:WP:PAGEDECIDE
615:
611:
608:
607:
602:
599:
598:
592:
585:
581:
580:
579:
578:
575:
572:
571:
565:
558:
554:
551:
543:
539:
535:
534:Chiswick Chap
531:
530:
529:
525:
521:
516:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
500:Chiswick Chap
497:
492:
490:
484:
482:QueerFilmNerd
477:
474:
472:
468:
464:
459:
456:
454:
449:
445:
439:
433:
429:
423:
419:
416:
414:
411:
408:
403:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
353:
349:
345:
341:
336:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
320:
315:
314:
308:
307:
301:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
280:
279:
274:
269:
268:
264:
260:
259:WP:PAGEDECIDE
256:
254:
253:
248:
247:
242:
241:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
168:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1638:
1636:
1576:
1535:
1492:
1456:
1429:
1412:
1408:
1397:
1390:
1379:
1359:— Preceding
1354:
1335:
1315:
1310:
1285:
1280:
1271:
1236:
1218:
1194:
1177:
1151:
1141:
1118:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1097:
1058:
1017:
1000:
935:
913:
894:
871:
835:
812:
795:
778:
761:
757:
739:
722:
718:
714:
697:
656:
623:
609:
587:
583:
560:
556:
552:
514:
495:
475:
457:
437:
417:
401:
318:
311:
304:
302:
276:
272:
270:
257:
250:
244:
238:
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
162:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1604:Jack Upland
1581:WP:PAGESIZE
1325:Hunter Kahn
1257:Jack Upland
1039:Mark viking
880:Jack Upland
702:Jack Upland
641:Mark viking
444:Mark viking
428:Mark viking
201:free images
1508:CaptainEek
1493:CaptainEek
1470:CaptainEek
1457:CaptainEek
1336:CaptainEek
1329:WP:NOTBURO
1327:, I think
1276:MattMauler
1119:individual
1085:MattMauler
1001:CaptainEek
872:The Hobbit
766:MattMauler
745:Carcharoth
669:WP:ALLPLOT
624:CaptainEek
1643:talk page
1365:Dlthewave
1102:WP:DETAIL
1020:Esowteric
954:Esowteric
938:Esowteric
848:Toughpigs
719:redirects
590:Esowteric
563:Esowteric
520:Sirfurboy
463:Sirfurboy
278:Moby Dick
37:talk page
1645:or in a
1558:Hog Farm
1518:Hog Farm
1373:contribs
1361:unsigned
1195:Keep all
1142:Keep all
1125:~ oulfis
1110:per book
926:Reywas92
783:Halbared
727:PJTraill
685:Hog Farm
677:WP:NBOOK
661:WP:NBOOK
407:TheOther
300:...etc.
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
1487:Wm335td
1474:Wm335td
1451:Wm335td
1438:Wm335td
1237:Comment
1178:Comment
844:WP:ARTN
817:WP:DINC
800:Deagol2
515:Comment
207:WP refs
195:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
1311:Hunter
1281:Hunter
821:Xaonon
681:WP:GNG
665:WP:GNG
438:Update
386:Andrew
249:, and
179:Google
137:delete
1587:Leviv
1577:could
1542:Leviv
1514:Torah
1391:Auric
1386:. --
1355:Merge
1219:Merge
1168:Focus
1098:Merge
1059:Merge
914:Merge
900:Leviv
610:Merge
557:merge
261:says
222:JSTOR
183:books
167:Stats
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
1608:talk
1562:talk
1522:talk
1478:talk
1442:talk
1432:see
1430:Keep
1421:talk
1409:Keep
1398:talk
1380:Keep
1369:talk
1316:Kahn
1300:talk
1286:Kahn
1272:Keep
1261:talk
1246:talk
1228:talk
1211:Talk
1186:talk
1133:talk
1114:only
1089:talk
1067:talk
1043:Talk
1041:}} {
1037:{{u|
1026:Talk
944:Talk
920:and
884:talk
852:talk
836:Keep
826:Talk
813:Keep
804:talk
796:Keep
787:talk
779:Keep
770:talk
758:Keep
749:talk
731:talk
723:LotR
706:talk
689:talk
679:and
663:and
657:Keep
645:Talk
643:}} {
639:{{u|
596:Talk
584:Void
569:Talk
553:Keep
538:talk
524:talk
504:talk
476:Keep
467:talk
458:Keep
448:Talk
446:}} {
442:{{u|
432:Talk
430:}} {
426:{{u|
418:Keep
402:Keep
390:talk
368:talk
348:talk
328:talk
215:FENS
189:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
50:keep
1591:ich
1546:ich
1536:not
1417:Thu
1083:.--
1063:TTN
904:ich
582:Or
410:Bob
388:🐉(
229:TWL
158:– (
54:JBW
1610:)
1564:)
1524:)
1480:)
1444:)
1423:)
1371:•
1302:)
1263:)
1248:)
1230:)
1209:|
1188:)
1135:)
1128:🌸
1106:go
1091:)
1069:)
956:,
886:)
854:)
815::
806:)
789:)
772:)
751:)
733:)
708:)
691:)
540:)
526:)
506:)
469:)
392:)
384:.
370:)
362:.
350:)
342:.
330:)
297:,
294:,
291:,
288:,
243:,
209:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
1606:(
1560:(
1520:(
1510::
1506:@
1498:⚓
1476:(
1462:⚓
1440:(
1419:(
1367:(
1341:⚓
1298:(
1259:(
1244:(
1226:(
1206:P
1203:I
1200:J
1184:(
1165:m
1162:a
1159:e
1156:r
1153:D
1131:(
1087:(
1065:(
1045:}
1023:+
1006:⚓
941:+
882:(
850:(
828:)
824:(
802:(
785:(
768:(
747:(
729:(
704:(
687:(
647:}
629:⚓
593:+
566:+
536:(
522:(
502:(
465:(
450:}
434:}
366:(
346:(
326:(
285:,
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
163:·
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.