Category talk:Films set in Middle-earth

This category was nominated for merging on 16 February 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Middle-earth

	This category 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.

I re-added the cat, these things I think are part of sword-and-sorcery, even though it's pretty High Fantasy for the genre. It the wizards, the slaying of mythical monsters, It's pretty much got it covered for being about this type of fantasy. Andrzejbanas 18:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle-earth films

I was under the impression that correcting obvious errors was not subject to the three-revert rule. Was I wrong?--88.104.46.22 (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With vandalism that is true, what the other anon is doing is not vandalism though, they have a genuine reason for adding the category. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can divine what the genuine reason is, I'll be in your debt (the editor is not known for engaging in dialogue). However, I will be more careful regarding 3rr in future. Thanks. --07:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Precedingunsigned comment added by 88.104.46.22 (talk)

Seriously? I'd like to see this edit backed with a valid policy or guideline; most films in the category couldn't reasonably (or verifiably) be called "British films". --07:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by88.104.46.22 (talk)

I am amazed that Twinkle users can be so quick to hand out template warnings and yet so slow to respond to reasonable requests.

But please, don't let me interupt the 3rr report you were looking forward to making. --88.104.46.22 (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should consider reading the guidelines on etiquette before continuing this discussion. Carl Sixsmith(talk) 08:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd rather hear your thoughts on why thisis the right thing to do. --88.104.46.22 (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of the films are British made. The book is a British book, ergo is is not invalid for the category to be added. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not convinced. Do you mind if I request outside input on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? --88.104.46.22 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, the more the merrier. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Apologies for losing my temper earlier; clearly haven't had enough sleep. Sorry. --88.104.46.22 (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've all done it. I try not to get emotionally attached anymore, I was guilty of thinking I owned certain pages for a time.Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and currently you're merely guilty of stupidity. You thick, fucking cunt. --88.104.46.22 (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]