Talk:Three Rings

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.

(post-merge) I could swear blind that Nenya was the sapphire Ring of Water and Vilya was the Adamant Ring of Air...I think the rest of the descriptions are accurate, it's just the names and titles got confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.188.63 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Suggestion

This definitely looks like it should be merged - the Rings of Power article already contains a section on the Three almost as long as this article. QmunkE 23:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be merged. Let it all be on one page. -Ted87 January 18, 2006.

It should not be merged! Are you stupid?

Merge and redirect seems fine to me. --CBDunkerson 11:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The section on the Rings of Power article contains more information anyway. PrometheusX303 22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the three seperate Rings into this page Albert109 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's no reason for each of the three rings to have a seperate page, even more so when this one is so empty. Storywise, they are all connected anyway, so it would be best to cover them as a whole. DMAJohnson 02:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no way should they be merged - it's much better with them separate - it's more specific! DON'T MERGE!

I'm going to merge these, since the only objections are unsigned anons. QmunkE 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Narya have a ruby set in it and a have a picture of what it looks like on the original cover for "The Fellowship of the Ring" illustrated by Tolkien himself? The other two rings have descriptions about them on this page. REL 31 May 2007

The paragraph about the light of Galadriel's ring has a very little sense to me. This light is signifience of great power and the ring wasn't a source of light normally. 195.150.224.33 22:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Fair Use Image

The image from New Line Cinema cannot qualify as Fair Use on the basis of being used to illustrate a movie that is not mentioned in the text. In fact the only mention of the movie is in the Fair Use Rationale. FrodoHalfpint (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concept

The concept section is riddled with original research and supposition. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirdan and Gil-galad

In the Narya section, Cirdan is described as Gil-galad's lieutenant. I thought Cirdan was born before Gil-galad? And ive never heard him described as his lieutenant as far as i can remember.--Aaronsdavis (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronsdavis (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

There is a fair bit of fluff in this article, for instance the fact that the three went over the sea is repeated in each section. I don't have time to do anything about it now as I'm stuck on a iPhone and that doesn't really support large edits. Anyone else feel like attacking it or if not I will attack it later. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC) GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I profoundly disagree. This is a reference work. The cost of text it minimal.

I am surprised by the way some people wish to deny everyone else the bits that they personally have no use for. --GwydionM (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]