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 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
An editor has attempted repeatedly to insert an "Owner" list into the infobox. The article does not substantiate any such list, nor could it, as the Ring had no "owners" beyond its maker, Sauron. Thus, Isildur claimed the Ring, but it actively opposed him, betraying him to his death. And so forth. An ownership box may, perhaps, make some sort of sense in a gaming world but it is quite inappropriate in a general article in a global encyclopedia for a wide audience. I'm actually not sure the infobox is a useful mechanism at all, but if it has any value, it must be in briefly summarizing undisputed basic facts. Ownership isn't that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twice. I put it in twice, then you reverted without proper explanation. That the One Ring passes from owner to owner is undisputed, among the main points of the series, if not the main point. The Ring actively opposing its present owner doesn't make them any less its owner. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been correctly warned, having made 3 insertions today, and I have explained my reversions extremely "properly", in elaborate detail. Even inserting something once when you know it is in dispute is edit-warring. As for the facts, there is no assertion in the article cited to a reliable source that anyone other than Sauron was ever the rightful owner of the ring. The sooner you note that Wikipedia works not from what you believe you "know" from reading Tolkien (or watching Jackson), but from sources actually cited, the quicker we'll make progress. The infobox must only summarize what is already in the article. I do hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two insertions of that list, not three. After then, you said in your summary that you only saw Sauron as the true owner, so, conceding, we added Sauron as the sole (rightful) owner. On the topic of Tolkien, yes, I would have been reading his works since I was five years old. I have not seen the Peter Jackson films. The point is not who the rightful owner of the ring was (which was Sauron, yes), but who was the physical owner of the wand, when it was stolen. Like how in the Harry Potter series, the rightful owners of the Elder Wand at the end were Draco Malfoy, followed by Harry Potter, but the physical owner of it at that time was Lord Voldemort. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can reliably cite a third party in support of your position on ownership, and summarise it in the article it does not belong in the info box, which as has been explain should only contain information contained in the article proper. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the original text you mean, meaning a third party like any WP:RELIABLESOURCE website?
“Frodo: 'It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance.'”
“Gandalf: 'Pity? It's a pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.'”
“Frodo: 'I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.'”
“Gandalf: 'So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.”
Wait, you were replying to Chiswick Chap, asking them to provide a source for their claim. Carry on. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was replying to you. What you have posted there would be considered WP:OR. We could argue Gandalf’s statement that the only Lord of the Rings was Sauron, and Aragorn’s statement that the ring “belongs to no one” as counter arguments, but we’d be all guilty of Original Research. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
