Talk:Barrow-wight
 | Barrow-wight has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 29, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 January 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Rings of Power second season
[edit]@Chiswick Chap, as in our previous interactions, I sincerely appreciate your dedication to maintaining a high standard of excellence for the Tolkien-related articles on Wikipedia.
Per WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof is upon me to demonstrate verifiability, and I believe I have satisfied this by providing a reliable inline citation. I agree with you that I would like to see commentary and comparison of Amazon's Wights to Tolkien's material, but for now, the sourcing simply notes their mere appearance (which, as their first major appearance in an adaptation, I would say is notable). TNstingray (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say the notability for this article is nowhere near proven, for three reasons: the sheer dullness of the mention; the fact that (per WP:CRYSTAL as I said) that the action is merely announced and hasn't actually started; and the extremely minor nature of the wight's mention in a publicity announcement. The claim that the to-be-appearance is "major" is assuming what you are trying to prove. Even if we accepted that the production were major, that would say the mention should be in the article about the production, not here about the wight. The same goes, of course, for each other character who may get what Wikipedia policy calls a "passing mention": hardly "major" as far as the wight goes, which is the focus of concern for this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is that different from their appearances in the 2002 RPG and the 1991 Khraniteli? Those are even more dull than my addition, and should be deleted by the same rhetoric. I don't know if you watched the trailer, but this is not just a mere announcement. Would it be better if the source discussed their appearance or something like that? I should rearrange my statement to say "their first appearance in a major adaptation". I don't see how my addition is any different from any other article about Tolkien's creations; it is supported by a source, and I'll add as many sources as I need to. I have great respect for you as an editor, but our interactions typically involve you jumping to assume bad faith about my intentions. I admire your devotion to the scholarly sources, but outside of critical commentary on Tolkien's work, his creations have permeated into popular culture, and that should be noted. TNstingray (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::: No assumption has been made of bad faith, and you should not be making any such assertions about other editors: I don't remotely think your additions are malicious, just not terribly informative. The use of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is widely agreed on Wikipedia not to carry weight: if something else hasn't been done very excitingly, adding more stuff like it isn't helpful. The advantage of citing reliable secondary sources, like film critics and scholars, is that such people quite often have something worth saying, not to mention conferring notability on articles. As for pop culture and fandom, we have articles on Middle-earth games, films, and television programmes, as well as on fandom itself, so there are plenty of homes for popular material already. It would certainly be better if you were to find something more to say than the almost nugatory "some actor did some acting", which might prompt the average reader to think "well, fancy that". You should be aware of WP:CRYSTAL; an encyclopedia entry about a forthcoming production should be limited to a single statement in the main article about the production (not least, because details can easily be changed at the last minute). More encyclopedic will be to wait until newspaper critics have actually responded to the series with some interesting opinions, and who knows, one day scholars may actually start analysing the various series, remark on their pop culture value, and draw out themes that either reinforce or vary Tolkien's approaches. As for Khraniteli, it is of interest in being the first production that has attempted to show the barrow-wight in its Lord of the Rings story context; maybe the existing rather dull entry should be adjusted to make that point. You should be aware of WP:CRYSTAL; an encyclopedia entry about a forthcoming production should be limted to a single statement in the main article about the production. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the existing references could be beefed up. I'm additionally in agreement that their appearance in RoP deserves to be beefed up as well, but I genuinely don't understand how WP:CRYSTAL applies here. It is a verifiable fact that they are appearing in the show, and that's informative and notable for the time being until the show comes out and sources note their specific place in the storyline in contrast to Tolkien's material. That doesn't violate any Wikipedia policy I've ever read. Is it the source that's the problem? TNstingray (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::: No assumption has been made of bad faith, and you should not be making any such assertions about other editors: I don't remotely think your additions are malicious, just not terribly informative. The use of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is widely agreed on Wikipedia not to carry weight: if something else hasn't been done very excitingly, adding more stuff like it isn't helpful. The advantage of citing reliable secondary sources, like film critics and scholars, is that such people quite often have something worth saying, not to mention conferring notability on articles. As for pop culture and fandom, we have articles on Middle-earth games, films, and television programmes, as well as on fandom itself, so there are plenty of homes for popular material already. It would certainly be better if you were to find something more to say than the almost nugatory "some actor did some acting", which might prompt the average reader to think "well, fancy that". You should be aware of WP:CRYSTAL; an encyclopedia entry about a forthcoming production should be limited to a single statement in the main article about the production (not least, because details can easily be changed at the last minute). More encyclopedic will be to wait until newspaper critics have actually responded to the series with some interesting opinions, and who knows, one day scholars may actually start analysing the various series, remark on their pop culture value, and draw out themes that either reinforce or vary Tolkien's approaches. As for Khraniteli, it is of interest in being the first production that has attempted to show the barrow-wight in its Lord of the Rings story context; maybe the existing rather dull entry should be adjusted to make that point. You should be aware of WP:CRYSTAL; an encyclopedia entry about a forthcoming production should be limted to a single statement in the main article about the production. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is that different from their appearances in the 2002 RPG and the 1991 Khraniteli? Those are even more dull than my addition, and should be deleted by the same rhetoric. I don't know if you watched the trailer, but this is not just a mere announcement. Would it be better if the source discussed their appearance or something like that? I should rearrange my statement to say "their first appearance in a major adaptation". I don't see how my addition is any different from any other article about Tolkien's creations; it is supported by a source, and I'll add as many sources as I need to. I have great respect for you as an editor, but our interactions typically involve you jumping to assume bad faith about my intentions. I admire your devotion to the scholarly sources, but outside of critical commentary on Tolkien's work, his creations have permeated into popular culture, and that should be noted. TNstingray (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Glad you're mainly in agreement. I'm far from sure about the source quality, but the Crystal bit applies as it's completely possible for an organisation to pull bits from a forthcoming show for a dozen different reasons, from disputes with subcontractors to scandals with actors (to name just two of the possibilities). To coin a phrase, "it ain't over till it's over". Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- So you're saying that we shouldn't list them yet because the wights could always get cut or something? I see where you're coming from, but that could equally be considered speculation. They were featured pretty prominently in Empire Magazine, which discusses how they weren't featured in Jackson's adaptation. It also discusses how they specifically adapted the detail of the wights' noble heritage in life into their visual design. Would mentioning these be worthwhile?[1] TNstingray (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)