Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography

Merging poetry
It's been suggested that the poetry page be merged back into the bibliography page, and I agree. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I also agree. All of an artist's work should be cited on anything that claims to be a bibliography, otherwise it isn't a bibliography. --Theletterandadot (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)theletterandadot.

I also agree. I was searching for Bilbo's Last Song, which is published posthumously as a book, but could not find it here. I didn't think that poems would be secluded to another page. There are a lot, but, at the very least, something that has been published as a book should be included in the bibliography. If it was a book of select poems, wouldn't that be included in the bibliography? Farglesword (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Don't poems count as part of a bibliography anyway? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - someone do it. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to do the entry, but I don't seem to be able to find his Foreword to A New Glossary of the Dialect of the Huddersfield District (Haigh, 1928) mentioned here. A small thing but an important connection to his linguistic interests. https://huddersfield.exposed/wiki/A_New_Glossary_of_the_Dialect_of_the_Huddersfield_District_(1928)_by_Walter_E._Haigh 212.159.59.41 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Manuscripts
Should the archives at Marquette and Oxford be covered here? WP:BIB may help.

J. R. R. Tolkien Collection now redirects to a section of our biography, a change from Marquette University as our university article does not mention 'Tolkien', and a target selected because this bibliography does not cover the manuscripts. But see Marquette University Special Collections and University Archives. --P64 (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Poetry section
Why are the titles of individual poems in italics instead of between quotation marks? Why are these titles in a bibliography anyway, given that a bibliography is a list of books, not a list of works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.163.236.249 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Unpublished material?
It seems incredible that his son kept publishing Tolkien’s materials up to 2018; should we mention unpublished works, if there are any? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A whole industry, with a lot of money behind it. Christopher didn't publish the mountain of his father's writings on the languages of Middle-earth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Editions
I agree that listing all editions of Tolkien's works would be overblown and unhelpful. My point in listing those specific Hobbit editions was that they constituted significant changes to the text (at least the 2nd edition). The Hobbit (1937) is not what 99.9% of people have read or see in bookshops - it is the third edition text that has been standard for the last fifty years and more. Also the ISBN supplied is for a 3rd Edition printing.

Would a note stating 'Significantly revised in 1951 to align the text with The Lord of The Rings' be reasonable?

Also, what is the purpose of supplying ISBNs? There are so many different printings of the same text, why should we select one? If it were always the first printing, that would have some technical significance, but I have no interest in Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's books, because here in the UK they're published by HarperCollins. -- Verbarson talkedits 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)