Talk:Minas Tirith

Minas Tirith 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: February 2, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Middle-earth Mid‑importance

	This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Archives

1

Notable? Restore?

@Chiswick Chap: Academic sources: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/20/article/182557/summary , https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol13/iss2/8/ and https://www.jstor.org/stable/26810634 suggest this is likely notable. I suggest restoring even now and tagging with {{sources exist}} if you don't have time to add an analysis section quickly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've given it a go, using those and other sources that I've been collecting over the past few years. It's quite a substantial article, and surprisingly different in character from Gondor even though they inevitably share some materials. I'll reduce the MT section of Gondor to a summary with "main" link now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An illustrating image at the top

In Special:Diff/1283397004 Chiswick Chap removed the image on the right from the article. I think the image is very useful and makes the article more engaging, interesting, and informative. This is because: a) more images would be useful in this article b) an image near the top was missing where one could right away see some illustration c) it's a quite good model when it comes to the city in the film which is the most popular depiction of that city d) the other images of MT in this article are all low-resolution e) the other images of MT in this article are all viewed from the side rather than a view from above which is for more informative and helpful.

Chiswick Chap explained the revert with far from sure we should do this: we already have good images of the visualised city, and there is no precedent on the project for it; nearest is the rule against fan art, which is a close neighbour – a) I disagree with the assessment "we already have good images of the visualised city" b) even if we had them, an image near the top was missing c) even if we had them, that doesn't mean there can't be a further image d) I think there are many cases of such images or photos being used for fiction articles including Middle-earth-related ones e) even if there was none that's not a good reason f) there is no "rule against fan art" and also there should be none just to favor commercial proprietary low-resolution art when free media art is also available.

The user also reverted an image addition in Special:Diff/1283432090 at Impact of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings (see second image on the right) where I think an additional image would be good and the images could be moved or be used with different layout such as the image being on the left or both and maybe one or two more being included in an horizontal section mini image panel at the bottom of the "Artwork" section which so far suggested one particular book of artwork would be all there is of artwork impacted by Tolkien's writings which is misleading and misinforming (i.e. false).
Prototyperspective (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user here. I am comfortable with my edit comment, which is surely correct. To expand upon it, there are already two professional artworks of the city in the article, and it's hard to see why we'd need a crude photograph of a fan-made model in addition. On fan art, the WikiProject has had a rule against fan art for many years, not least because Jackson fans inserted large number of variously imaginative figures of their heroes, of distinctly varying quality. The use of models could actually be described as falling foul of this rule, since a 3-D artwork is still an artwork: there's no reason to limit the rule to two dimensions; and the lead is certainly the most sensitive place for any such artwork, making it especially undesirable up there.

Another thing is that the artwork looks film-derivative; the work of Peter Jackson's concept artists led to the city appearing as it does in his films, and this certainly resembles the city-bigature: but the article is principally about Tolkien's book version of the city. Leading off with a fan-made model of a film version would seem, from this perspective, to be looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

As for the definitely-fan art for Impact of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, that is quite definitely against the WikiProject's rule, no matter how artfully arranged the image is to avoid the practical issues of which it also fell foul. That would be true even if the image didn't look like someone in a vile mood giving Wikipedia the finger, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By saying it's hard to see why we'd need a crude photograph of a fan-made model in addition you barely addressed c1) to e1) and I still disagree: c) it's a quite good model when it comes to the city in the film which is the most popular depiction of that city d) the other images of MT in this article are all low-resolution e) the other images of MT in this article are all viewed from the side rather than a view from above which is for more informative and helpful.

Other editors are certainly not obliged to follow your framing of the issue which you have created, let alone to agree with any item within that framing. However, your item (c) or (c1), whatever the micronumbering scheme du jour may happen to be, admits it's a film-derived model, which is a point I have addressed above in some detail, so I'll not repeat myself: see above. Your point (d) or (d1) speaks of resolution; obviously, we are limited to fair use for professional images, except in rare cases where an artist donates an image. However, it is the work of moments for any interested reader to use the fair use thumbnail to locate higher-resolution artwork on the web; we could even consider providing links in footnotes if a consensus of editors felt that to be appropriate and worthwhile. It's not a justification for moving to fan art. Your point (e) or (e1) is simply mistaken as far as this WikiProject is concerned.

the WikiProject has had a rule against fan art for many years But not anymore? Link? of distinctly varying quality Remove the lower-quality ones and the two I added are of good quality and e.g. used in other Wikipedias.

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, neither this article nor English Wikipedia need take the slightest interest in what other Wikis, with different rules, may be getting up to. We have to make our own mind up on what works here. And believe me, I and many other editors have removed plenty of dreadful fan art over the years; it seems we will be obliged to continue doing so.

the work of Peter Jackson's concept artists led to the city appearing as it does in his films, and this certainly resembles the city-bigature: but the article is principally about Tolkien's book version of the city. Leading off with a fan-made model of a film version would seem Very good point. However, from that I would only take that this image should be displayed further down either in the Film section or somewhere further up with the caption that this is displaying the city based on how it is in the film. I think an aerial view from above / a view where it can be seen more clearly would be good, especially if it's free media and not a low-resolution fair use image not aligned with free content. One can't see the city design / concept well from the 2 images that are there.

We can only work from what professional artists have done.

Regarding the other image: the image looks good and the person in it just shows the ring so it doesn't look weird. One could also e.g. this. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion, and as the person who posted the image, you could be expected to think that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please don't reply in the midst of my comment. For example other editors may be confused thinking I wrote that and I've never seen anybody do that. Would be best if you moved your text out of my comment.

I did not make any framing, I made some points. No idea why unlike my friendly constructive post you're quite confrontational and apparently offended. Also I posted this not just to ask you but for all people watching the article. Your point (e) or (e1) is simply mistaken how is the other images of MT in this article are all viewed from the side rather than a view from above false?

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, neither this article nor English Wikipedia need take the slightest interest in what other Wikis, with different rules Maybe if you weren't so offended and felt personally attacked you'd see that nowhere did I refer to any other wikis. I simply asked for a link and you still haven't provided any so increasingly it seems like this is just your personal opinion rather than a rule currently by this WikiProject. We can only work from what professional artists have done. False. Also who tells you the model wasn't made by a professional artist? That's a matter of opinion Did I say otherwise?

Now leaving this for other people to weigh in since again I did ask all editors of this article, and didn't mean to just reply to you. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]