Talk:Rangers of the North

	This redirect 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.

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Merge

How about moving all the assorted Chieftain info under their names, and making their articles all redirect here? There's too little info on them to warrant articles on their own. Same goes for Halbarad, and most of the Stewards of Gondor (in its own article of course). Uthanc 08:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I most heartily agree. However, I think it might be best if we move it all under the article List of Chieftains of the Dúnedain or List of Chieftains of the Rangers of the North or simply, List of Dúnedain — and then if the size of the lists get too big, then we can split into two sublists: List of the Rangers of the North and List of the Rangers of Ithilien. This article is about the Rangers of the North as a group, so I think a list would be a better fit. (Same with the Stewards of Gondor.) —Mir l e n 14:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

Scottish Connatations

Dúnedain could be a refernece to Dunedin, a historical name for Edinburgh. There is also an Dunedin in New Zealand, where the film trilogy were coincedentially filmed there. The Rangers of the North could also be reference to the Scots/Picts as they dress similar to historical Scottish barbarians with their long-flowing hair. Furthermore, J.R.R. Tolkien was a prominent Rangers F.C. fan and 'North' could refer to 'North of the border' (i.e. Scotland).

Well, I believe he coined Edain before he coined Dún-edain. "Dressing similar to Scottish barbarians" is obviously Viggo-inspired. And the Rangers F. C. thing - was he? Uthanc

Elrond's role

Doesn't he get tired of being babysitter every time the king has a son, century after century? Turidoth (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Article

The article says: "The 31-strong Company met up with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli near Pelargir ". This is not correct. The Company met up with the Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, and King Theoden of Rohan near the Fords of Isen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.35.141 (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Ranger (Middle-earth) and Rangers of Ithilien are both topics of lesser importance that should be merged to here. Goustien (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I am unsure if this article will survive AfD. I guess we can try it out in the near future, if it survives then the merge should go ahead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am less than convinced that any of these topics are notable enough to merit an article. I am less than convinced we really have any topic here notable beyond Aragorm himself. Everything else we have on the rangers and their history is buried in an apendix.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rangers are mentioned in the novel, with the arrival of the Grey Company, but I agree this isn't particularly notable. There could be a claim for notability in that Tolkien's rangers have influenced the ranger class in Dungeons and Dragons and the Ranger's Apprentice series.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in the Lord of the Rings is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Aragorn~~(see below) We need to think where things will end up and do something sensible. Here, there is no doubt of the notability of Aragorn, a major hero of Lord of the Rings in text and film (and probably game, too, I shouldn't wonder). I suggest all the ranger titles just redirect to him and we will have a stable solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the notability of Aragorn. He is largely a nondescript heroic character. He has no existence independent of the novel. People refer to Sherlock, Scrooge, Tarzan etc without reference to the original works. I don't think they do that with Aragorn, at least not to any great extent. Sure, you can find journal articles comparing Aragorn to Henry V, Umbopa, or Natty Bumpho. But this is just a testament to the notability of the novel.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C05F:77B6:F943:FAE5 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After the results of the recent AfD for Ranger (Middle-earth), I think that the main ME Ranger ~~category~~ article should be target of the merge. I'd rather merge the specific article into the general article, not the other way around like proposed. Hog Farm (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't merge to a category; and the only notable item in the current mess is Aragorn, a hero of LOTR as well as various films and games. There's no future in any "Ranger" article. The rest follows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Oops, "category" was not the word I meant to use there. I've been at CfD a bit today, I probably had that in mind. Hog Farm (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree with Hog Farm. Tolkien created the fantasy concept of the ranger, which has influenced the D&D "ranger class" and the Ranger's Apprentice series. This is genuinely original, while Aragorn is just a stereotypical rough diamond/king in exile type character. Strider and Faramir are examples of the ranger. They are not the only rangers depicted in the novel.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you are arguing about; "genuinely original" forms no part of any Wikipedia policy, unless it's WP:OR which strictly forbids original research. Faramir is not a ranger at all; "Strider" is a name of Aragorn, last of the ranger-kings (Dunedain), and the one and only ranger whose name is known to millions. Aragorn is the only one of these articles which is undoubtedly notable (please read the Notability policy if you are in any doubt about this). We can readily provide a short paragraph on the notion of "ranger" in the Aragorn article; all the other ranger-characters are minor to the point of invisibility, as Tolkien did what he habitually did, providing a mass of names and hints of histories to build a feeling of "depth". The idea of merging the Aragorn article into the others is frankly absurd; their only claim to fame is him. If you don't believe this, please go and study the scholarly and critical literature: even Tom Shippey, a notably pro-Tolkien critic, barely mentions rangers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to WP:BKD.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shall have to leave this one on the "too difficult" pile for now; there are indeed hundreds of other non-notable articles to be deleted, merged, or redirected, so we have our work cut out without wasting time on impossibilities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, support reverse merger. Although Chiswick Chap's argument to merge to Aragorn is very tempting (I even supported it at AfD), I realize it is a little drastic. The common sense idea to merge a more specific topic to a more general one is hard to object to, and a good compromise. I think everyone agrees we have too many "Ranger" articles, and even if this decision isn't final, merging Rangers of the North to Ranger (Middle-earth) moves us in the right direction. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, support reverse merger. Ok, I can go along with that, let's try to close this out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hoping to close this soon, but there seems to be a descent split between "merge" and "reverse merge". Perhaps the "merge" advocates @Goustien and Piotrus could respond with thoughts on reversing the direction? BenKuykendall (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge whichever direction you think is best, just hope that the end article is notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I now support reverse merger as proposed by @Necrothesp in an earlier deletion discussion. Goustien (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is there a hurry?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No particular hurry. Just a lot of ongoing ME-related merge discussions most of which have been open for at least a month. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge to Ranger (Middle-earth), which covers both topics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much time has passed without further thoughts. Since there is actually a close consensus that a merge is desirable, and the more general article should be the target, I'm completing the merge now. I suggest we think about a further merge with Dunedain which is barely a notable topic in itself: editors should perhaps carefully distinguish between how large something seems in-universe, and how significant it might seem outside that. Major characters in book and film (and no doubt game) like Aragorn are undoubtedly notable; larger or smaller groupings to which those characters belong, far less obviously so. The merged article is still not very well cited, and all contributions to its improvement will be greatly welcomed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would support a merge with Dunedain. Please set up a merger discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]