Talk:Lúthien and Beren/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Original Mary Sue

Does nobody think this article needs some kind of mention on how she is the literary equivalent / trope of the 'Mary Sue'? Paradoxelrath (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Lúthien and Jesus also both returned after their deaths, according to each of their sources. Though they did so in a different order from each other: Jesus, God(Immortal) > became mortal > suffered > died(left the temporal world) > resurrected; Lúthien, immortal > suffered > died(sort of, she never left Eä) > resurrected(sort of) > became mortal > died(left Eä).

But as we all know, first hand accounts are the most unreliable evidence available (to orthodox wikipedians in good standing). So none of this can be entered until an accredited scholar gives us a third hand account. Unless this counts as Azure ("The word Azure is a near synonym for the color blue. Commonly it refers to a bright blue, resembling the sky on a bright, clear day.^[duh!]")

Vampires

Someone has infused elements of modern vampire stories with the overview of Tolkien's work. Someone with knowledge of the story needs to edit this work out. Porphyry87 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Which bits are incorrect? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just given the article a once over and the vampire bits are all accurate :) Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that. Thuringwethil the vampire does in fact appear in the original story. De728631 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A Bit Confused

Can't quite figure out what this is supposed to mean: "As all the Telerin she was not very high, the corporature was quite minute." Anyone know what was intended, so it can reworked into somewhat more standard English? Is this just a really verbose way of saying she was short? 128.164.108.6 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Died aged 3377"?

Where does this number come from? According to this (though the source isn't cited), the Sun was created in YT 1500, so if that year is immediately followed by FA 1, it would make Luthien 803-804 years old at time of death in FA 503. - Sikon (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Info

For the infobox, it says that Lúthien appears in The Silmarillion and Beren and Lúthien. Shouldn't it also say that Lúthien appears in The Lay of Lethian and LOTR? ARoyalPrincess (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Lúthien and Beren → Beren and Lúthien (Middle-earth) – This article was boldly merged from two different characters into one article. This caused the title to be unnecessary confusing with the actual book Beren and Lúthien, as replacing the order has no actual meaning in this article. Optimally, the article should either not have been merged, or fictional characters and the book should have been merged from the start, but we're here anyways. The best option currently is to disambiguate this page using the "Middle-earth" consistent style and redirect this title to the book article.

As the current title does not represent any status-quo, there shouldn't be a default "no-consensus" vote outcome here. Gonnym (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with your premiss here; there is a status-quo, and policy does not support adding disambiguating qualifiers like "(Middle-earth)" when there's nothing to disambiguate, so on the immediate question I OPPOSE the move; but see below. In any case, the qualifier could apply almost equally well to "Beren and Lúthien" — it's about events on Middle-earth — so as a way of making things less confusing, it's pretty much a no-no, it wouldn't help at all.

Naming the other article "[Beren and Lúthien (book)]]" would be clearer but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a non-standard solution also? If it's acceptable then that would be my preferred option.

I don't believe that undoing the merge would make a lot of sense; if L loves B, and B loves L, and B plays a major role in L's life, and L plays a major role in B's life, and most of the events in both are the same, then handling L and B together is the obvious thing to do.

I think we should consider carefully whether it would make sense to merge the two articles, as after all the story told by the book / tale is the story of these two characters: but "book" articles and "character" articles are generally not the same in scope, tone, or content so I'm far from sure what the answer is, and haven't studied the matter yet. Happy to be persuaded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

On examination, I think we can actually just mergeto Beren and Lúthien, the 'book' article, which is better cited. There is some material here that can be added to that article but the two are substantially WP:FORKs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The book article is conflating topics together. Since the book is newer than various topics pre-existing on Wikipedia, there should be though on making the story the primary topic, with the book itself as a subtopic. The story has been published before in several places, prior to being recollated into a new 21st century book. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment wouldn't the proper disambiguator be "(characters)" or "(fictional characters)" ? Definitely not "Middle-earth", since the book is set in Middle-earth, and the tale that tbe book is based on is also set in Middle-earth. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• No It is clear that disambiguation is unnecessary since there is no other article with the same name. As for the name, unless I am mistaken the author invariably uses "Beren and Luthien", so it would make sense to follow the common usage. Also, since the book came much later than the characters, the article about the characters should be the main article. If, someday, someone publishes a book titled "Gandalf" it would not make since to put the article about the character in with the book. My vote would be to have one article, titled "Beren and Luthien", primarily about the characters, with a mention of the book at the end, where we would find information about differences, if any, between the earlier story and the story in the book. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rick Norwood - but that would mean a merge; I suppose technically it would be a reverse merge and a rename back to to the name of the current 'book' article, but that's getting a bit recherche for a process. Basically we get one article, characters first, book second. I'd support that. Maybe you could indicate that preference in your !vote? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My "vote" was just on the issue of using (Middle Earth) in the title. My recommendation would be first to change the title to "Beren and Luthien" and, if that was successful, to think about merging the article about the book into this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. A faintly ridiculous disambiguator, given both articles are about Middle-earth! Merge the two articles and name the composite article Beren and Lúthien. No need at all for two separate articles, and the naming is invariably this way round. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Fan art in an article?

The article currently features a painting “Lúthien pleading with Mandos. Art by Gregor Roffalski”. This is fan-art, the painter was just a guy active on a Tolkien fan site and uploaded it there. Is fan art really appropriate for a Wikipedia article? The other painting shown on the article, by Ted Nasmith, is at least work by someone historically connect to Tolkien’s publisher. 83.31.195.15 (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's allowed as long as the work is appropriate, which this image is, and contributes to the article, which it does. It also quietly acknowledges that the Silmarillion has a readership, not a bad thing for an encyclopedia to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ordered sequence

"someone imprisoned in darkness" necessarily precedes "a powerful and evil jailor"? —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Picky. I suppose these could theoretically be marked somehow differently, but frankly whatever the syntax might be it isn't worth it. The scholar is right in a literary way that there us a general order in the set, and it's definitely getting ORish to argue otherwise. Let's not go there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)