Jump to content

Talk:The Lord of the Rings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleThe Lord of the Rings is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleThe Lord of the Rings 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 5, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 17, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 18, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
September 29, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
December 26, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 31, 2020Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 29, 2021, July 29, 2022, July 29, 2023, and July 29, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Is "Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings" a notable topic?

[edit]

I've come across Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings page, created in 2022 by Chiswick Chap. While I’m not an expert on Tolkien or LOTR, I'm unsure whether this subtopic meets notability criteria. From my perspective, it appears to be a rather niche academic subject.

If sexuality were truly a significant aspect of the work, I would expect it to be addressed within the main article. However, there is not a single references to "sex" or "sexuality" there.

Perhaps someone with more experience in this area could consider whether the sexuality topic should be integrated into the main article. Otherwise, I'm in favor of the orphan page deletion. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is cited to 30 Reliable (Secondary) Sources, not counting the Tolkien sources for the primary materials mentioned in the article and by the secondary sources. As a rule of thumb, editors generally take anything with more than about 3 reliable sources providing substantial coverage to be notable, so we are far above that threshold here. The sources are diverse, including Tolkien's biographer John Garth, the LGBTQ writer David LaFontaine, feminists like Penny Griffin, Christian theologians like Ralph Wood, and scholars of communication, fantasy, and literature as well as of Tolkien himself. You may note, too, that the article impartially covers differing views on each of several topics: love and marriage, on female monsters, and on same-sex relationships. This is a wide-ranging and encyclopedic article firmly rooted in published sources. As for merging, that is a non-starter as it would grossly unbalance whatever article it was added to with its detailed discussion of a single topic. The article is not an orphan either, as it is linked from multiple articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is cited to many sources, I’m still uncertain whether the topic is truly significant enough to warrant a standalone page, especially given that it doesn’t seem to merit a section in the main article. Additionally, I was curious about other articles that link to your article. It appears that many of the inlinks come from the fact that you’ve added it to the LOTR template (dif}, which is likely why the "What links here" tool shows so many hits. Since there’s no easy way to filter out template links, do you recall any in-text, contextual links from other articles? If the topic is notable, I would expect many such mentions. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that you created the redirect page Same-sex relations in The Lord of the Rings. [1] While I appreciate this effort to increase visibility, I’m curious why similar redirects haven’t been created for other sections mentioned in your article, if those sections are considered equally important and notable. I’d be interested to hear what other editors have to say, but based on my reading, it seems that the whole article is at risk of being a WP:COATRACK, bloated with tangents. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]