Talk:Gandalf/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Gandalf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

McKellen's Gandalf impersonates Tolkien

(continued from the archive, Talk:Gandalf/Archive 1#McKellen's Gandalf impersonates Tolkien)

Today I put this in the McKellen paragraph with a block quotation of Jackson--all but the first quarter of the passage I quoted here when he was interviewed in December.

I drafted the image caption "Ian McKellen as Gandalf, whom he portrayed with Tolkien's voice and mannerisms", and variants of same, but settled on a shorter version of the previous caption, simply cutting verbiage and linkage (as for the 1978 caption).

The tag {{citation needed}} previously appeared at the end of a sentence with three points: "At the time he was cast, McKellen had never read any of Tolkien's works, but he quickly developed his knowledge of The Lord of the Rings and based his accent on Tolkien.[tag]" Having provided a source for the latter I cut his knowledge of the novel and relocated his reading none of the works, with the tag.

--P64 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Resurrection

Gandalf doesn't return from death. He uses the term figuratively, not literally. He isn't killed by the Balrog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.51.35 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tolkien, in Letter 156, disagrees with you. -- Elphion (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Gandalf the pope

I sadly do not have the reference, but I was given to understand that Gandalf the white was meant to be the pope. Basically, the white, the highest order of the wizards was the pope. I believe that Tolkien himself said it, keeping in mind that he was Catholic so... If anyone can find the reference, I believe this should be stated under influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.66.190 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right: Citation Needed. -- Elphion (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked again a little, and was unable to find a citation. If anyone can find it, it would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.66.190 (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

All I could find in this context is an essay from Tolkien Studies wherein the crowning of Aragorn by Gandalf is compared to Charlemagne's crowning by the pope [1]. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You shall not pass

You shall not pass! links here, but the article does not explain why. -- Juergen 37.24.203.1 (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Image

It seems to me that there should be in image in the infobox, either the earliest or most iconic representation of the character, as consensus dictates.— TAnthony^Talk 15:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus at WikiProject Middle-earth that articles on Tolkien subjects should not have any images in the infobox at all because this gives undue weight to the selected adaptation. Unless there are original drawings by Tolkien that illustrate the subject we confine any images of characters to the "Adaptations" section. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Subterranean lake

I've reverted "huge" and "miles" (below Moria) in the description of the subterranean lake. These are WP:PEACOCK words. Tolkien's text gives no support for either. -- Elphion (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gandalf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gandalf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Image & lede

1. Why was the image removed from the infobox? Now, the article has no thumbnail.
2. "Death" is unverified and too controversial. What's wrong with my version? Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Images belong in the adaptation section. There have been numerous adaptations of the Lord of the Rings, none take precedence, none are the definitive version. There is also the issue of fair use, the images are not free and need to be discussed in the article to pass. Being nearer to the section they are discussed in helps to keep them fair use. Consensus has been for no image to appear in the info box. And death is not controversial in the least. Tolkien is clear that Gandalf died, and through this sacrifice earned the right to be sent back with greater powers. GimliDotNet (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Letter 156 explains that Gandalf really died. Do not revert me again or you will be reported to admins and blocked. GimliDotNet (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Gandalf really ‘died’, and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called ‘death’ as making no difference. ‘I am G. the White, who has returned from death’. Probably he should rather have said to Wormtongue: ‘I have not passed through death (not ‘fire and flood’) to bandy crooked words with a serving-man’.

right there Tolkien is explicit. Gandalf really died GimliDotNet (talk)|

This is getting ridiculous. You're using my source to disprove my point? You're really shooting yourself in the foot here, man. Please explain how that makes any sense and/or where you got your last quote from, and until you've done that, the template should stay.

Also, either it is fair use, or it's not. The location of the file is completley irrelevant. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That quote is from Letter 156. GimliDotNet (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

First, he didn't "die" according to your quote: "Probably he should rather have said to Wormtongue: ‘I have not passed through death".

Second, where is the link?

Third, I'm gonna bump up the picture to the infobox again, until you explain why it's any less fair use than having it in the bottom section. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not passed through death to bandy words. Read the whole letter. He died and has returned. GimliDotNet (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be a generous interpretation at best, especially given the line "anything that can be called 'death'". But fine, you can phrase it your way as long as you include the full quote in the citation for context. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Gandalf's death is not "unverified". There are many adumbrations in LOTR, and Tolkien discusses this in Letters (where he explains why he didn't want to say it in so many words in the book), and he states it explicitly in the essay "The Istari" in Unfinished Tales (a reference that was already present (and quoted) in the article (under "Characteristics"). I've repeated that reference in response to the citation needed flag. As for illustrations, the long-standing consensus in the Middle-earth project has been that info boxes on the articles about the books should not present illustrations from adaptations, since these (especially Jackson's films) differ so substantially from the books. Illustrations from adaptations are OK in the "Adaptations" section. As far as fair use is concerned, I am no expert, but the general discussions always emphasize the need to establish an overriding reason to include a copyrighted image, and the need for more than one especially so. -- Elphion (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the image to the adaptation section, Mithrandir the Grey has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Error in the first paragraph

In the first paragraph of the article, "In The Lord of the Rings, he is initially known as Gandalf the White, but returns as Gandalf the Grey.[2]" is wrong. he is initially Gandalf the Grey and returns as Gandalf the White. I'm flabbergasted that no one has noticed this. This error continues through the first part of the article... Gandalf is called GREYhame, the GREY pilgrim and the GREY wanderer. Looks like vandalism of the sort that greatly irritates geeks like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.201.88.8 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It was from vandalism earlier today, and has already been reverted. -- Elphion (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Historic present style

I rewrote the plot summaries for The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings in this style. I do not know if we should rewrite his back history in this way.

I also wonder if we should try and trace his impact on similar figures in other works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Literary function in the Hobbit

The annotated Hobbit has a little to say of Gandalf's literary function in that work. It would be nice if people added more on that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

Not sure we should use a movie screenshot for the infobox, maybe File:GANDALF.jpg would be better. Thoughts ? - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You're right, we certainly must not, as it's a breach of copyright. If anyone feels the need to discuss this, it should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth where I've started a thread. I'll move the screenshot out of the infobox now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Ganadalf" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ganadalf. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gandalf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review Comments

Lead: is there a source for the pronunciation being "(/ˈɡændɑːlf/)"?

Removed.

Lead: should it be "in Völuspá" rather than "in the Völuspá"? A quick reading of Völuspá and a Google search suggested the former, but there are Google Books results that refer to the Völuspá."

As you say, it can be either. 'the' feels more natural to me.

Names: As there are multiple meanings for the word staff, is there a useful link that can be added to avoid possible confusion with staff in the employed sense? Wizard's staff redirects to wand but I'm not sure that's helpful here. I'm happy with no change if there isn't a link that makes it easier for the reader than leaving the article as-is would.

Yes. As none of the Istari had a team of staff officers, I think we'd best just leave it really.

I don't like the look of "Internal biography" as a section heading. Is "Fictional biography" or something else appropriate? (I don't think that MOS:WAF is prescriptive about this. I'm happy to consider any argument for retaining the current phrase.)

Yes, that's nicer. Done.

The White Council: "Gandalf suspected early on that the Necromancer of Dol Guldur was not a Nazgûl but Sauron himself." This is the first time the Necromancer is mentioned in the article, so consider a brief intro. (e.g. "Sauron concealed himself in the south of Mirkwood as the Necromancer, in the stronghold of Dol Guldur, "Hill of Sorcery" - which is a direct lift from the Sauron article.)

Added a gloss to avoid going into too much detail here.

The Hobbit: this is the first mention of Bilbo here, so I suggest linking to the article Bilbo Baggins here rather than later. (Or in both places.)

Linked.

The Hobbit: "To the quest, Gandalf contributes the map and key to Erebor." How about something like: "Gandalf contributes the map and key to Erebor to the quest party."

Edited. Avoided 'party' as we had 'tea party' in previous sentence!

The Hobbit: this is the first mention of Elrond here, so I suggest linking to the article Elrond here rather than later. (Or in both places.)

Linked.

Gandalf the White: "Wormtongue makes an indecisive attempt.." Should it be something like "unsuccessful" rather than "indecisive"? Or, if the point is that he was uncertain, something like "An indecisive Wormtongue makes an attempt.."

Removed, it reads fine without.

Gandalf the White: "the forces of the West faced the full might of Sauron's armies, until the Ring is destroyed in Mount Doom" - I think "Ring was destroyed" would read better, but that might be just a personal opinion.

Done.

Guide: "The Tolkien scholar Charles W. Nelson …" paragraph cites the same reference three times in a couple of lines. I think it probably only needs the citation at the end of the paragraph.

Done.

Adaptations:"The make-up and costumes were based on designs by John Howe and Alan Lee" needs a reference. (Unless I've missed the reference to this in the HuffPost article.)

Good catch, removed. Howe and Lee were the conceptual designers, I don't think they stooped as low as makeup, and nor need we.

Adaptations: The "McKellen received widespread acclaim .." paragraph needs some more citations for awards (SAG, Saturn), and ideally one to support "widespread acclaim," although three major awards and inclusion in Empire's list is arguably enough to support that phrase.

Added refs.

Adaptations: "making him the only individual cast member of the films to be nominated for an Oscar" feels like it needs a citation to avoid looking like WP:OR.

Removed, really not necessary.

Chiswick Chap I'm happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my comments above. The pending tasks for me are the copyvio check, image check, and look at the article supporting the Lego Movie paragraph. I should be able to do those tonight. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

Adaptations: The paragraph beginning "Gandalf appears in The Lego Movie .." needs further citations. The stated source doesn't cover most of the points here.

Cut down, focussed, and added refs.

I've gone through results showing above 5% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and have only one concern. The matches are mostly attributed quotes, titles, or text taken from the Wikipedia article rather than vice versa, but the phrasing of the Appearance section is a little too close to the Tolkien Society source included under external links.

Rewritten.

External links: IMDB is regarded as an unreliable source but is OK to include in external links as per WP:RSP, so it seems fair enough to keep lotr.wikia.com in here too.

Removed the flakiest of the external links.

Chiswick Chap I think this should be it for my comments, but I will give the article another read-through tomorrow with fresher eyes. Thanks for the earlier responses. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap - thanks again. I'm now happy to pass the article for GA. Well done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Gandalv" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gandalv. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#Gandalv until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Fictional elderly character"

‎SomeBodyAnyBody05: You have now twice added the category "Fictional elderly character" to this article in edit-warring style without starting a discussion thread per WP:BRD (the status quo is WITHOUT the category, I'd point out).

However: Gandalf is a wizard and not a mortal human, so is not "elderly" in the sense of "old, frail"; he is able, like the hero Aragorn who is aged 80 in Lord of the Rings, to wield a sword effectively in battle, and he can gallop all day long on his horse Shadowfax: not "elderly" in any typical sense, really.

Worse for the category in this context, Elrond, the powerful leader of the Elves at Rivendell, is thousands of years old. Elderly? I think not. Or how about his beautiful Elf-daughter Arwen, who looks about 20 to Aragorn, but is also thousands of years old? We're hardly going to call her elderly. No, the category does not work for Tolkien's Middle-earth, even if (as I doubt) it is acceptably non-ageist anywhere else. Let's get rid of it, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap I understand your point of view so would you mind if I was to add this category to those separate pages then? I appreciate you starting a discussion over the matter instead of engaging in an edit war. Some people aren't very keen on the details of the Lord of the rings series and could interpret Gandalf as elderly as e has features of the stereotypical elderly man such as graying bread and wrinkled skin. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think ANY of them can be classed in the normal "realistic fiction" category of "elderly", it does not apply to Tolkien's sort of fiction (epic, high romance tending to myth, whatever). If you seriously want to call Arwen elderly, then I suggest you start a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth and seek consensus on the matter; please do not add ANY such category to ANY Middle-earth article until such consensus has been reached. Meanwhile, per WP:BEFORE, I would ask you to remove the category from this article as it is disputed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur that Category:Fictional elderly characters applies to "Gandalf" because in an out-of-universe context, the character does have an elderly appearance. The fictional details are not as relevant or applicable. For example, Perilous Realms: Celtic and Norse in Tolkien's Middle-earth says Gandalf looks like an old man in the vein of Odin the wanderer. I don't see this category applying to the other LOTR characters. If more input is needed, perhaps post neutral notifications at WP:LOTR and WP:CHAR. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, Lord of the Rings does say, "At Bilbo's front door the old man began to unload... and the old man was Gandalf the Wizard... and the old man smiled... When the old man..." If an in-universe descriptor is really required. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's useless clutter and it cannot be applied consistently. There are many thousands of characters whose authors describe as elderly in fiction, and Gandalf is NOT one of them. That he appeared to a hobbit as "old" does not prove the point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:CATDEF, being elderly is not a defining trait of Gandalf, he therefore doesn't fit the category. There is also a difference between Old and Elderly. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Old and Elderly are very similar words. Old by definition is "having lived for a long time; no longer young." while Elderly or Elder means "(of a person) old or aging." They mean almost the same thing. And a category named Fictional old characters doesn't sound right. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CATDEF does apply because his elderly appearance is modeled after Odin. The source J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment says, "Odin wanders the Middle-earth of Norse belief in the guise of a gray-bearded old man; Gandalf the Grey is a version of 'The Odinic wanderer'." Furthermore, "elderly" and "old" should be treated as interchangeable here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

why should they be interchangeable here? They are different words for a reason. Gandalf is in the guise of an old man, but he is not an old man.

If we are being pedantic he would be in a category called Fictional Characters who appear old but are not. I also fail to see the benefit of the category anyway - are people really wanting to navigate articles based on them being (or appearing) elderly? Perhaps we should create a category for fiction bearded people, or fictional people who wear grey cloaks. It’s meaningless. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

also just checked, and the Odin article is not in a category for fictional elderly people. Perhaps try putting him in one and see if you get traction there if being modelled on Odin means Gandalf qualifies for it. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Words can be synonymous, and if reliable sources use them that way, then the category would apply. The book The Mythology of Middle-Earth says, "...like Gandalf, Odin was depicted as elderly, with a long grey beard." In an out-of-universe context, this is about depiction. The argument that Gandalf isn't "really" elderly is from an in-universe perspective, which has much less weight here. As for the article on Odin, other stuff exists, and the lack of the category there is not proof either way. As for other categories, it depends on reliable sources covering these elements. I could see more of an argument for bearded characters than cloaked characters, but that's an argument for another time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose having this category here. Like GimliDotNet said, this category isn't defining for Gandalf. Same with the Elves. Like Sam said, the Elves are both young and old at the same time. Technically they all probably fit, but since age isn't a defining feature for Gandalf, the category shouldn't be added. Hog Farm (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
There are reliable sources talking about Gandalf as representative of Odin, including the "oldness". Here is a third reliable source discussing it. The Return of Odin: The Modern Renaissance of Pagan Imagination says, "Gandalf possesses many of the traits of Odin... Gandalf is an old man with a long beard." Of course he is more than just that, but the "old" look is clearly defining per reliable sources, regardless of personal preference. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article already covers this under the "Guide" section, so that sourcing and what has been shared above clearly makes this a defining characteristic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To cite opposite examples to clarify the framing, there are child characters like The Omen's Damien Thorn and Interview with the Vampire's that aren't "really" children, but that is the depiction that is shown, and these depictions are defining characteristics. The same goes with depicting Gandalf as old/elderly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've thought about this overnight. "Elderly" is not a synonym for "old", as is implied in Erik's comment just above here. Elderly means so old as to be frail, vulnerable, weak, in need of special care and protection. Characters such as Gandalf are extremely old in the fiction, but are in no way frail and weak: indeed, Gandalf is one of the most powerful and vigorous figures in Lord of the Rings. The category simply does not apply to him, and I concur with the other editors' arguments against its application here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede “Power”

Is there a better way of wording this in the lede, The repeat of power slightly bugs me…

As a wizard and the bearer of a Ring of Power, Gandalf has great power.

Can’t think of a better alternative at the moment though. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Much better! GimliDotNet (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

would you upload this image https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/lotr/images/e/e7/Gandalf_the_Grey.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121110131754 for infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.90.70.131 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

We can't use it, as the image is in copyright. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Istari vs Wizard

This articles switches between the two terms, seemingly at random and it’s only half way through that it’s made clear the terms are roughly equivalent. Could do with a bit of cleaning up maybe? GimliDotNet (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually the terms are introduced both in the lead and at the top of the article body. Wizard is the main and preferred term throughout; Istari has been mentioned in a few places where authors also used it. I've tidied up a very few instances. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentor or leader?

I have no linkable reliable sources, but the TLOTR's X-Ray on kindle specifically said "Gandalf is the leader of the fellowship of the ring." -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 20:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Sorry, never mind. I didn't see the word "leader"... -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 21:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Biographical information in lead

There is very little information in the lead about Gandalf's (obviously fictional) biography. I propose to add the following paragraph:

Gandalf voyaged from Valinor to Middle-earth during the Third Age. In The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gandalf was the first person to realize that a magic ring found by the hobbit Bilbo Baggins was in fact the One Ring formed by Sauron for the purpose of ruling all of Middle-earth. When the Fellowship of the Ring was formed to aid Bilbo's nephew, Frodo Baggins, in his quest to destroy the One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom in Sauron's land of Mordor, Gandalf was the leader of the Fellowship. During the Fellowship's journey through the Mines of Moria, Gandalf died battling a Balrog. However, Gandalf came back to life and was known thereafter as Gandalf the White. He helped King Théoden of Rohan defeat the forces of the treacherous wizard Saruman and then aided the land of Gondor in its effort to withstand an invasion by Sauron's armies. Gandalf then helped to lead the armies of Gondor and Rohan in an assault on the Black Gate of Mordor. When the creature Gollum took the One Ring from Frodo and fell into the Cracks of Doom, both the One Ring and Sauron were destroyed; Sauron's armies, left leaderless, were vanquished. Having succeeded in his quest, Gandalf returned to Valinor.

EugeneMJ (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Just adding that doesn’t make sense, it would need to be edited and fitted in with what’s already there. Also, the Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy. GimliDotNet (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconded, and the purpose of the lead section is just to summarize the article body. We should not be hand-crafting new text, specially if that is with colourful new phraseology (e.g. "vanquished") rightly not used anywhere else, or interpretations like "came back to life" (an immortal Maia may be sent to Middle-earth but his life does not depend on being there). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to edit the paragraph and fit it in with what is already there. To be frank, what is already there isn't great. The second paragraph of the lead is a bit scattered, mentions less-than-significant details (like Gandalf's fireworks, for example), and jumps into the story midstream by bringing up his battle with the Balrog. It doesn't really explain Gandalf's significance to the story. The first paragraph of the lead is good, though.

I find some of the concerns hard to understand and would invite other editors to reconsider. Every single thing I included in the paragraph is discussed--sometimes at length--in the article body. I can certainly change the phrasing surrounding Gandalf's return to life, although I note that the chronology in Appendix B to ROTK says, "Gandalf returns to life, and lies in a trance". Minutiae about whether to use the word "vanquished" or some other word that means the same thing shouldn't be an obstacle to inclusion. EugeneMJ (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hm, well, I think GimliDotNet's comment entirely valid, we need not a stand-alone "new" paragraph but cautious and careful summarizing of the *actual* content of the article so that the lead accurately reflects the article text. Starting by trying to parachute in something new is getting it totally back-to-front. The text is thorough, both on the primary description of the character from Tolkien (which does nothing for Notability) and on the vital interpretation of the character, both by the scholars and by popular sources such as film-makers. Emphasising the LoTR story elements is wrong on both counts - this is a character article, not a story section; and the primary side of things is just that, one side; it's actually wrong for a third reason, too, which is that the article covers what we know about the character from Tolkien's other writings such as Unfinished Tales, which gives a "behind the scenes" view of his attributes that LoTR leaves the reader to guess at. We do not need, and should not tolerate, extended story coverage in the lead, it simply isn't appropriate. On fireworks and the use of fire in great need, these are absolutely not trivial, but are related to the character's essence, and indeed to his possession of Narya, the Ring of Fire. I'll read it through again and check we are covering the main elements of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've made a quick pass; both the story-bio and the adaptations needed attention. It's not perfect but it covers 'the main points'. Further edits should focus on omitted details that are core to the character - we obviously can't say everything in a summary of a summary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Chiswick Chap, for adding that paragraph to the lead. It addresses all of my concerns very well. I appreciate your efforts. My only suggestion as to a substantive change would be in the second-to-last sentence regarding Gandalf using persuasion rather than force. There are a few instances to the contrary; see, for example, The Return of the King at page 41 ("[Gandalf] raised his hand, and from it a shaft of white light stabbed upwards. The Nazgûl gave a long wailing cry and swerved away...") and at page 68 ("[Gandalf] lifted up his hand, and in the very stroke, the sword of Denethor flew up and left his grasp and fell behind him in the shadows of the house; and Denethor stepped backward before Gandalf as one amazed..."). Would it be OK with you if I revised that sentence to say, "In each case, he assists more often with counsel and persuasion than with force," or something along those lines? EugeneMJ (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Um, once again you ate trying to reason from primary sources rather than summarising the article text: that is called 'Original Research', and is strictly forbidden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, Chiswick Chap, I see your point. My concern with the sentence that reads "In each case, he assists not with force but with persuasion" is that it is not quite accurate. If modifying the sentence creates a WP:OR problem, would it be OK if I removed it? (Incidentally, do you think the sentence itself is also original research?) Not trying to be a pain; just trying to get this right. :) EugeneMJ (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You are *still* trying to reason rather than read the article's cited text and summarize it! It actually mentions the persuasion thing several times, e.g. " The role of the wizards was to advise and counsel but never to attempt to match Sauron's strength with their own, and hopefully the kings and lords of Middle-earth would be more receptive to the advice of a humble old man than a more glorious form giving them direct commands.[T 1]" That is of course Tolkien's own gloss on the matter; it may be that more scholarly discussion should be provided on the point, but certainly not editorial opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, I'm just trying to get the language to be accurate. That sentence isn't consistent with the article body or the cited sources and it needs to be removed. EugeneMJ (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Since we agree that his contribution was largely by guidance, I've said that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. That's not far from what I originally suggested. EugeneMJ (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll look out more sources in 'slow time'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Summary of different types of adaptation in lead

An editor has taken exception to the mention of music in the final (adaptations) paragraph of the lead. However, the paragraph first covers radio and moving pictures, then goes on to music. It is entirely reasonable, indeed mandated in the MoS, that the lead should cover each section of the article. Music is an important element of that section, and it deserves to be covered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD

The policy states, in terms "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not." This is exactly the case for White Council, which is thus properly boldfaced in the lead section. Editors may like to note that the policy does not require the term to be a synonym for the article's title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

White Council is not a synonym for Gandalf. If you went through Wikipedia articles and BOLDed every occurrence of a redirect without the synonym rule, I think you'd have a lot of bold going on. Let's leave it unbolded as it is not an alternate (synonym) title for the article which is what readers are expecting. StarHOG (Talk) 12:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

StarHOG: Two things, at least. 1) It is not required to be a synonym, read the MoS quotation just above again. The bolding is right, proper, and in my view also necessary here. It's certainly in line with the MoS. 2) You have now reverted multiple times, which is edit-warring, having first been asked (twice) to take it to the talk page, and (now) while actually discussing it on the talk page, a) without waiting for consensus, and b) against the principle of status quo ante, about which you were also informed. I find that behaviour totally reprehensible in itself; given that your earlier edit comment clearly indicated that you were not familiar with the relevant parts of the MoS, you should plainly have held off, or at least come here instead of edit-warring. GimliDotNet: as you've thanked me for my recent edit and comment, what is your view on this? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t even know why this is up for discussion. The manual of style is incredibly clear on this, it stays bolded - if there is an issue with thinking synonyms shouldn’t be bolded, edit warring on this article is not the place to do it. It can be raised there. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the issue is should a NON-synonym be bolded just because it is a redirect to a section on this page. The MOS is pretty clear on this, it isn't usually done. StarHOG (Talk) 00:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, Cheswick Chap, I don't take kindly to bullying. Telling me I'm edit warring when you revert my edits is the pot calling the kettle black. Having your edit reverted and then posting ridiculous comments about YOUR edit shouldn't be reverted without discussion blah blah blah...why not leave my edit and have a discussion? Telling me I'm edit warring, posting pompous notes that your edit shouldn't be changed, telling editors they don't know what they are talking about, saying how my behavior is "reprehensible", pinging me in your comments because you think I should pay attention to you, pinging friends to back you up...you're a bully. Stop it. StarHOG (Talk) 01:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

{{U|Chiswick Chap]] This is to notify you that you are in violation of the 3 revert rule on this article. You reversed my edit at 9:40 on August 13, 4:29 on August 14, and 9:12 on August 14. Making three reverts of another editors work is, by definition, edit warring and against Wikipedia policy. I am not reporting this violation but urge you to reach a consensus on the edit in question. If you continue to edit war, I will have no choice but to bring this and any further violations to the attention of the administrators. StarHOG (Talk) 01:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong. Plain and simple. The guidance does not say only synonyms are bolded, commonly is not a synonym for exclusively. Drop the stick and move on. GimliDotNet (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who started waiving the stick, and I'm not the one who is edit warring. If you are here to help, why not ask for a justification of the use of bolding of a non-synonym, which is not common amongst wikipedia articles. Why employ it here? What is special about the term White Council, other than that it is a redirect, that it merits this uncommon usage not normally found in other wikipedia articles that also have redirects? Sure, the MOS allows it, but it also points out that it is not common. So please, let's discuss why this is being done here. I feel it confuses the lay reader, as they are accustomed to seeing synonyms bolded in articles, and Gandalf is related to the White Council, but Gandalf is not synonymous with the White Council. StarHOG (Talk) 13:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD does not point out that it's not common. You are twisting words. The related article does not need to be a synonym of the article to be bolded, it just more common for redirects to be synonyms. That is not the same as saying it is uncommon to bold non-synonym redirects. There is nothing to discuss here, the bolding is supported by policy - if you don't like that - get some traction on the policy page to get that changed. GimliDotNet (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, such as telling an editor to go someplace else and lobby for change. MOS:BOLD allows for bolding of non-synonyms when they are a subject of a redirect to a page, as is the case with White Council. However, that too has rules found at Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects? in which it states that, "But insignificant or minor redirects can skip this." Now, once again, please explain what is special about White Council that it needs to be bolded? StarHOG (Talk) 20:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is not going any further until you withdraw your outrageous claims of WP:NPA. GimliDotNet (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Image or symbol in infobox

Looking through older revisions, I saw that there is some discussion around what to put in the info box. I understand the hesitation of putting art in the info box. as the Lord of the Rings is an originally literary work, it is up to the reader to determine what the character looks like. I still think it would be helpful to have some visual element in the info box, it makes the page read cleaner and is more engaging to people looking for more information. Additionally, the lack of any kind of image makes it seem duller in comparison to Saruman, strange for the most identifiable character of the series.

My proposal would be to take the "Emblema Gandalf.svg" from the body of the article and put it in the info box. As mentioned in the body of the article, this serves as a kind of sign or seal for Gandalf. It does not conflict with anyone's own visualization of Gandalf and has been reproduced in a copyright-free format. The clarification on what the symbol is could be retained below or incorporated into the info box itself. If this idea is controversial, I would want to restart that discussion, as it seems that having a visual element of some kind increases the quality of the article. Captain Cookie 15:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie (talk • contribs)