User talk:64.43.50.93

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Middle-earth in motion pictures
Hi, you'll see that I've reverted your addition of a table/list of characters in this article. If you'll please take a look at that article's talk page, you will see that a consensus was reached according to Wikipedia policy that such a list was not needed or appropriate for this article. There is no objection to a separate list such as you propose; if you do create one, then feel free to insert a link to that article. It could be a link; it could be embedded directly in the text, something like shared cast of characters ; or it could go in a "See also" section if all else fails. I do hope this is clear, and good luck with your Wiki-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * One other thing: you'll note that Wikipedia articles have to be cited to reliable sources. An uncited list would be liable to deletion as non-notable; there are legions of deletionist editors (I'm not one of them) happy to nominate uncited articles for the chop, so you'd be well advised to seek out suitable sources and cite them carefully in your article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Is two people really a consensus? If there was an article for deletion, one wouldn’t delete based on one “Delete” vote and no others. There’d have to be at least two/three (other than the proposer). The same with this section. I’ve opened a discussion there in the talk. 64.43.50.93 (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * And I've replied. Please do not begin Wiki-lawyering, it's never helpful. I may remark however that consensus is always local - people turn up when they are around; but BOLD action to restore articles to a state compliant with policy is allowed with or without, actually. There are multiple reasons in Wikipedia policy against a list/table SYNTHESIZED from materials by ORIGINAL RESEARCH by editors without evidence of NOTABILITY of the resulting mass of fan-style material without encyclopedic value. If scholars, critics, and textbook authors have seen fit to remark that this set of actors have gained lifelong employment in the Tolkien film industry, and have seen fit to make tables and lists of all the correlations and recurrences, then the topic is notable. If they haven't, it's fan forum fodder, not encyclopedic presentation of known reliably-sourced facts. I do hope this is clear: this discussion would be more productive if it could begin on both sides with a clear recognition of Wikipedia policy, and these really are the core of its policy: if the encyclopedia isn't reliable and seen to be so, then it is nothing. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean they absolutely have. If all you wanted was for references to be added supporting that, you need only have asked. 64.43.50.93 (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources need to have stated in terms that this set of actors recurred across all the productions mentioned in the table; citing twenty different sources for different bits of the table is SYNTHESIS, as already explained. I'm not inventing something new here, this is core policy and has been so for many years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)