Talk:Middle-earth in motion pictures/Archive 1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Middle-earth in film → Tolkien's legendarium in film – "Legendarium" seems to be the preferred name for the fictional universe as a whole, encompassing the characters, locations, and stories detailed in Tolkien's works. "Middle-earth" merely describes the setting, whereas "legendarium" specifies the works which have thus far been adapted to film. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Let's keep this simple per WP:COMMONNAME.  We also have Middle-earth in video games and all these.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Legendarium" is a fussy term to get around the fact that "Middle-earth" is only part of the universe; but most of the books and virtually all of the derivatives do take place in Middle-earth, so "Middle-earth" works fine and is, as Rob points out, far more common. -- Elphion (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Middle-earth is definitely the WP:COMMONNAME, and certainly the more recognizable as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Zarcadia (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, looks like I've been bested. :) Time for a snow close, I think. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 19:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Box office performance & critical response
I want to ask permission from the creator of the page to do a Box office performance and a Critical response panel on the page, below the Cast panel.
 * Be bold, but as you can see, put some effort into it.

Great work. A lot of work, and research went into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Is someone going to add a critical reception and box office section for this. Broncosman12 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Middle-earth in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100922004749/http://www.calendarlive.com:80/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan16dec16,2,3219427.htmlstory?coll=cl-mreview to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan16dec16,2,3219427.htmlstory?coll=cl-mreview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Middle-earth in film. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012173749/http://www.avclub.com:80/content/node/22810 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/22810

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Spyware link
Removal :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle-earth_in_film&type=revision&diff=769140782&oldid=767015122

"Contrary to widespread belief, the film rights to The Lord of the Rings were never held by Walt Disney."

The linked site is an attempted browser hijacker, which attempts to download content. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ANYONE ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW THIS LINK - please. The page randomly redirects to http://critical-failure1294.83kf14851563.info-r1pj-mgqn09.faith/ which contains the malicious content. Not all visits to the page will cause this to happen.

(sometimes it redirects to http://www.2719hyperion.com/2009/02/myth-of-walt-disneys-lord-of-rings.html, sometimes to the correct site which is http://2719hyperion.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/myth-of-walt-disneys-lord-of-rings.html )

The actual text appears to be a false supposition - afaik - the claim is not widely believed. I have assumed this is/was a malicious attept to compromise peoples computers.

I have contacted this site's admin. Again PLEASE NO NOT FOLLOW OR ATTEMPT TO REPLACE THE LINK.83.100.174.82 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saving us! I'll see if I can hunt down when that link was added, and see if anymore dangerous links like it were inserted. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I scanned the website with multiple malware/spyware/phishing-link detectors, and found nothing. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * VirusTotal confirms there is no virus. When people report hits with their own scanner for links like this, on well-managed sites like Blogspot (again a Google service), about 95% of the time it's due to the advertising network (which on this site is surely Google's own) serving a malware ad, which a blackhat has managed to sneak past the ad network's checks.  Once someone at Google/Doubleclick notices, the ad is killed. So the site's author, and the person who added to Wikipedia, are blameless - and it's perfectly okay for the site to be linked from the article. In this case I've not restored it, because I'm not convinced that the person on Blogspot constitutes a WP:RS. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The "50%" Tomatometer rating for the Bakshi film is OR
RT doesn't give a rating because there are not enough reviews catalogued on RT, and all the ones listed (which have been counted up and assessed by Wikipedians, it seems) are retrospective reviews that, to one degree or another, compare the film to the Peter Jackson series. I say just give as N/A like for Metacritic. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Middle-earth in film. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903220627/http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/three_rings_for_hollywood.htm to http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/three_rings_for_hollywood.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205084150/http://www.tolkiengesellschaft.de/v4/alleszutolkien/filme/bakshi/bakshisoutingheute.shtml to http://www.tolkiengesellschaft.de/v4/alleszutolkien/filme/bakshi/bakshisoutingheute.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111031065417/http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/anticipationandflattening.htm to http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/anticipationandflattening.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/hobbit-filming-finally-under-way-169449
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214100626/http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/article/12524/lord-of-the-rings-prequel-for-just-25000.html to http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/article/12524/lord-of-the-rings-prequel-for-just-25000.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middle-earth in film. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111113606/http://usefultrivia.com/movie_trivia/the_lord_of_the_rings_trivia_010a.html to http://www.usefultrivia.com/movie_trivia/the_lord_of_the_rings_trivia_010a.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph a bit misleading
The first paragraph of "Early attempts" implies Tolkien liked the "look" of the film but not the changes to the story, but do we know how much concept art he was actually shown and liked? My reason is that (apparently -- it's been years since I actually read the letters, and then only once) he didn't like the appearance of the Orcs, the Elves, Orthanc, Meduseld, Rivendell, Narsil, etc. which makes me really wonder whether he expressed enthusiasm for one or two non-specific paintings, then when he saw what the rest of the film would look like he hated it. My narrative is OR, of course, but so is the narrative currently implied in the article: are the letters of Tolkien the only ones discussing the film proposal at all? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

1966 short film
Excuse me, I was just thinking, although it is a short, ridiculous attempt at adaptating the plot of The Hobbit, shouldn't there be a page about the 1966 The Hobbit short film, like, for example, that of the dedicated website Tolkien Gateway? --Mod Terrik (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC).

Summary style, given there are subsidiary articles
This article is somewhat over-long, even rambling; the elaborate detail also conflicts with the subsidiary articles listed in "Main" links in several of the subsections. Such subsections should contain only a summary of the linked "Main" article on that topic, rather than introducing "new" materials. The other subsections should contain a broadly similar level of detail so as not to jolt the reader from large detail in one place to summary in another, so the implication is that the whole article needs to be cut down to form a crisper overview of the topic, which very reasonably is broken down into a tree of articles. In short, this article shouldn't and doesn't need to try to say everything. I'll have a go at cutting it down to something more like an overview. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"film"
An old chimaera has resurfaced. "Film" in this article has the meaning of moving pictures, a combination of moving images and soundtrack, whether live-action or animated. Those pictures and sounds might be created with celluloid and tape recorders, or digital cameras and recorders; they might be delivered in a cinema or at home, via a film projector on to a silvered screen or a sheet hung from a wooden pole in a darkened city square, or a digital television screen; they might be transmitted on reels of celluloid carried by a courier, or over the Internet, and so on and so forth. I really don't think any of those distinctions are at all relevant – not even slightly – to an article such as this one which is concerned with moving-picture representations of Tolkien's Middle-earth. So, if something is a television mini-series, it's still directly relevant here as long as it's a director's attempt at showing Middle-earth on some kind of screen. Hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but who decided that "film" in this case means moving pictures and soundtrack? This seems like a bunch of nonsense to me since literally no other "in film" article in the whole of Wikipedia works this way. Not to mention that the Amazon series is NOT by Warner Bros and it is not actually confirmed by either companies to take place in the same continuity.★Trekker (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you freely expressed view. However it's the clear view of the film and other scholars looking at Tolkien adaptations; the WP:Otherstuffexists argument won't help you here or anywhere else. The Amazon company thing is a side issue which we can easily fix, I hold no brief for it, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see that despite the fact tou had seen and joined the discussion here, you saw fit to start editwarring. That is not appropriate as you must certainly know, we did BRD already so you should immediately self-revert and apologise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "However it's the clear view of the film and other scholars looking at Tolkien adaptations"
 * [Citation needed] and [who?]
 * Reverting once in one day is not edit warring. Its clear you just have own issues and a personal POV you're pushing about what film means.★Trekker (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My words above were far to harsh and I appologize for that, but I want to see some actual sources that back up your claims, not vague statements about scholars, as well as some links.★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology and the revert. My statement that Tolkien adaptations for television are "film" is however easy to attest from scholarly books. In, the Tolkien scholar Janet Brennan Croft brackets the Rankin/Bass TV film with the Bakshi LOTR, writing "both films are highly unsatisfactory as examples of ..." (p. 224). As another instance, in , the Tolkien scholar David Bratman again brackets those two adaptations, writing "Few film adaptations of books couldn't be described with some justice as replicating the core story. Bakshi well surpassed that level. Even Rankin-Bass's television Hobbit and Return of the King surpassed that level." (p. 48). Thus whether made for television or for the silver screen, whether live-action or cartoon (or even rotoscoped), the term used is film. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Renaming
Hey,, the usual and more acceptable way for renaming is first raising this topic on talk page and then doing so after a discussion. "In film" is general enough to include television, but "Adaptations" is too broad - games and music and audiobooks are also adaptations. Artem.G (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In film is general enough to include television — are you sure? That doesn't sound right. I think either Middle-earth in other media or Adaptations of Middle-earth would be a better title for the page, with subsections linking to Middle-earth in video games, etc. Or could Middle-earth in film and television do? HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Artem.G: why is "Adaptations" too broad for Middle-earth when Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings is doing fine? Perhaps we could do with a merge discussion about Middle-earth in video games, which seems to include significant "LOTR" stuff. I don't know how you handle this overlap, when LOTR is a significant subset of Middle-earth. It seems to invite bloat and redundancy. Elizium23 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A merger proposal (or at least a discussion) seems like a good idea. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Adaptations of LOTR is not only about films, but also about "other media", though it's an ugly phrase. And the article that was called Middle-earth in film is more general, not just a list of films and series, but about all depictions of Middle-earth on screen. Instead of useless merge proposals and moving the pages, the right thing to do is to actually improve articles and not waste time on this. Artem.G (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But that is not a general title; this article is currently about the film and television adaptations, not just film. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the approach, with multiple non-agreed renamings, some knowingly against consensus, has certainly been disruptive; and the current situation is not tenable. The intention of both article and template is to cover specifically the moving-picture adaptations, as we have other articles on games, music and indeed on adaptations-in-general. Therefore, creating yet another "adaptations" article is both wrong and confusing, introducing severe overlap and disrupting normal navigation.


 * I must say that, like Artem.G, I don't see any issue in including pictures-with-talk that happen to be broadcast once on television as "film"; I find calling Amazon Prime "television" far more jarring, as it doesn't have the most basic attribute of TV, namely a schedule, so people all watch it at 18:00 on a Saturday. In short, both "film" (celluloid reels, anyone) and "television" (mm, Cathode-ray tube in your sitting-room) are words that ought long ago to have been ditched for outliving their usefulness. I note that other words that don't work for me are "video", "movie", and for that matter "internet", "streaming", and "download", none of which remotely cover the territory.


 * I suggest we go for "moving picture" as that covers the right subset of the many kinds of adaptation, without overlap. I think I may speak for Artem.G and other editors on the WikiProject in asking for discussion to reach consensus, rather than any further actions of the kind recently taken. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I find calling Amazon Prime "television" far more jarring — I mean it is literally a streaming television series. It might have the budget of a film, but it is still a television series, referred to as one by the writers, directors, actors, and showrunners. That is how it works. I do not know about you, but Middle-earth in moving-pictures seems a bit to 1930s to me. Like Elizium23 pointed out, "Adaptations of Middle-earth" is WP:CONSISTENT with Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings and Adaptations of The Hobbit. On your last point, this is a discussion to reach consensus, I thought? That is why we are talking here, is it not? HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for discussing. The problem in your proposal is that the articles you mention differ radically from this one in their scope. Both the LOTR and TH "adaptations" articles cover, as one might reasonably expect, ALL TYPES OF ADAPTATION, including film, radio, games, music, and other media. This article does not; and if it did, it would a) need to be radically extended and rewritten, and b) redesigned so as not to overlap excessively with (especially) the LOTR article. I can't see that either of those things would be sensible. This article is about "film" sensu lato, and we are trying to reach a sensible accommodation within those parameters. You know already that my choice would be to stay with the original title; if that is considered too much of a stretch, then we need a term that covers "pictures" in the sense that the broadcasters like the BBC use the term, moving images with sound on a screen. I may add that the thing that is least desirable in an article title is the word "and" (or indeed, any other conjunction) as it implies coverage of multiple topics, which is forbidden. If anyone has a better suggestion then let's hear it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So the television series adaptations — the miniseries Hobitit and ongoing The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power — should not be mentioned on a page about Middle-earth in film. Either those need to be split to another page about Middle-earth in television, or this page needs to be renamed and rewritten, and Middle-earth in video games should be merged here (as proposed by ) for a page about the different adaptations of Middle-earth (which this page is). While quite "cinematic", The Rings of Power is not film. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Um, you are jumping about very fast. We are discussing a new TITLE for THIS ARTICLE, not creating other stuff which might or might not be needed. The solution of ditching all the "television" pictures from this article is drastic; it would of course leave only "film" sensu stricto in the article, in which case we'd move the article and template back where they came from, but as you rightly indicate that would create further problems downstream. A new title, or the acceptance that "television" pictures can belong under the film heading, would be better and simpler here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, I see that the Motion Picture Association states of itself that "We are the leading advocate of the film, television, and streaming industry around the world." This at least implies that they believe that "motion picture" encompasses all three of those things. Hence, we might follow the Motion Picture Association and use "Middle-earth in motion pictures". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. and : Would you agree? HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fine compromise, though I see no reason why it's better that simple 'in film'. Both films and tv have actors, directors, screenplays, and are filmed. But I'll agree that 'motion pictures' are way better than 'other media' or whatever. Artem.G (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So we have consensus. Do you want to move it, or should I? HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bilbo encounters Gollum(screen cap of the 1985 Soviet film adaptation of "The Hobbit") Цйфыву (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Fantasy films" section as a sub-section of "Animated films"
This sub-section covers a lot of inspired fantasy films which are live-action, would it possibly to move it somewhere else or make it its own section? ★Trekker (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Schizophrenic article
This is a mature article; it tells the history of Middle-earth in film and other motion-picture media clearly and rather comprehensively. But, Gollum-like, it has two personalities.

One (Sméagol) is calm, concise, encyclopedic, historic, and careful to cite its claims.

The other (Gollum, my Preciousss!) is straight from Tolkien fandom and thinks that synthesising a giga-table of "Cast and characters" (doesn't Cast mean a list of actors and characters?) in exhaustive uncited detail, listing characters so minor or so new that they don't even have bluelinks, with (ahem) not a single citation in sight, is wonderfully exciting and totally appropriate. Actually it thinks that the Crew is equally exciting and wonderful.

But this is an article not about a film – where a list of cast and perhaps crew is relevant – nor even about a film series (where such a list could I guess be OK), but about a whole lot of productions by different directors in media from animations to streaming. What exactly is the rationale for combining the personality of film fandom (every detail of every production of every type, enumerated) with an encyclopedia article about the process of bringing a complex book to the screen? Each of the productions has its own article, complete with cast and crew...

In short, something has gone very wrong here. There is no good reason for reduplicating cast and crew of multiple productions, each well-documented in separate Wikipedia articles, here in an article of a different kind. The history of Middle-earth in motion pictures, with its twists and turns among different companies, does not have a cast or crew, or at least, if it does, they are Tolkien, Walt Disney, Forrest J. Ackerman and so on at that level. But the article gives those folks plenty of space already.

I suggest that we remove the two large WP:SYNTH tables, "Crew" and "Cast and characters" from this article. They could imaginably go into a separate list article (or two articles), but they would be wholly uncited deletion-fodder, and they would be wholly redundant to the cast and crew lists in the various film articles already mentioned. So we're probably best just cutting them: the article will be much the better without them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, tables add nothing to the subject. If anyone wants to know who played CharacterName in MovieName, it's easier to check this movie's article. This one should be general and readable, so I completely agree with proposed removal. Artem.G (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Cast table
Would we be opposed to a cast table of just the Recurring cast and characters, as exists at Spider-Man in film and Batman in film, summarising just those characters who have appeared across multiple franchise interpretations of Middle-earth in motion pictures? As there should be one here, if not split already to an independent page. 64.43.50.93 (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I already put a note on your talk page, stating that the matter had already been discussed on the thread (above), so I'm sorry this old sore has been reopened. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid reason for doing something, as the other cases are very likely in breach of policy too. The article is unquestionably in a better state without the list, for the reasons given above. The article is now coherent, uniform in style, and encyclopedic. Quite apart from the damage such a list does to coherence and style, the insertion of a large volume of uncited material into a fully-cited article by definition decreases its quality from fully verifiable to something markedly lower (verifiable by research, perhaps). There are thus multiple reasons for not putting such a list here. As I've already stated, there is no objection to putting such a list somewhere else, but it will have to be cited or become instant deletion-fodder. The reason for that is not just that a lot of editors insist on Wikipedia's notability policy; nor even that fan-material like comparative lists of cast members are unencyclopedic; but that unless RELIABLE SOURCES - scholars, critics, textbook authors - have discussed the matter of actors recurring across Middle-earth productions, are CITED in the article and hence have demonstrated NOTABILITY, such comparisons are ORIGINAL RESEARCH and therefore forbidden. It would be much appreciated if you could please go and study these core Wikipedia policies before going any further. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the note. You seem to be ignoring what I was saying, which is that what I am proposing is the norm on other pages like these (and that two people two weeks ago is absolutely not consensus to make radical changes to an article). I was not proposing a return of the original bloated list, but a shortened version as with other pages, and then-after a separate article listing every cast member (also like the other ones), which would be linked to as the main article of discussion above the shortened list. You seem to be saying that as long as it has citations, a shortened Recurring characters list would be welcome presently, before the separate article is made. That can be arranged. 64.43.50.93 (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not ignoring it, but replying to you in detail. I do not think either the list you propose or the original list would be appropriate, though clearly the bigger one would be even worse. I have already suggested it would be more appropriate as a stand-alone list and given you encouragement to cite it properly, if such sources in fact exist. I have also noted, repeatedly now, that patching together multiple fragmentary sources (source 1 says actor A served in films x and y, source 2 says actor B served in films x and z, etc) would NOT be suitable, as this is SYNTHESIS. I have further stated, again repeatedly now, that this particular article needs a fan-table like a hole in the head. I have also told you that arguing from other stuff that exists on Wikipedia is not helpful: there is plenty of badly-constructed material out there and we do not need to add to it. I have also told you that I boldly deleted the original table, something I could have done without discussion, with a proper statement on the talk page and with the agreement of another project member. Granted it might have been nice to have a wider consensus but we can only have what's available; the "radical change" was certainly an improvement per policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you just edit your original response with your rebuttal (and make my initial response look contradictive to a bystander) rather than actually respond? 64.43.50.93 (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I just fixed a small error in my text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well. 64.43.50.93 (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It may also be helpful to note that there is already rather a large table of this sort in The Lord of the Rings (film series). That one is somewhat more defensible because at least it concerns just the one film series, so some idea of the cast might be expected there: and it is properly cited because critics were interested in the series' cast list. That is probably the situation you were trying to compare with other franchises, in which case the reply would be that a) there is already such a cast list over there, and b) the cast list would make no sense over here: if it were the franchise-only cast list, it doesn't belong here, an article not about any franchise; and if it were the bigger list, it doesn't work for all the reasons given above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That section would also be among the things split, in this scenario. 64.43.50.93 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * None of that would be relevant to this article, to be clear, as it is not that kind of article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)