Talk:The Atlas of Middle-earth

Oakbottom

I added that one to Oatbarton some time ago, but can't find reference anymore. It's spelled correctly on 70-1.

Also useful might be the inclusion of Tarnost on pp 88-9, and the inclusion of "Sackville" as a town name (70-1). And maybe something about "things that are now shown to be incorrect", like Hardbottle. Fonstad placed it in the SF, but Nomenclature placed it in the NF. -- Ederchil 04:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I am not aware of these, so I would love it if you could make the additions. Also, I am afraid if the article is a bit too negative. I really love this book. Sage 05:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe a rewrite is necessary. I don't like articles that have a bulk of text first and their first section header at the bottom. -- Ederchil 05:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Third edition

Did the 3rd edition add anything new or was it just a reprint? --Olwe 15:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a reprint but the TolkienBooks.net might have a better idea. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I thought, too. It was only done for the films. But I'll check with Tolkienbooks.net and emend here. --Olwe 12:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Lists of versions, bibliography, reviews, etc.

I made a comprehensive edit to everything that's been added since the last time I checked in on this article, and first want to say Airyn made additions of new inconsistencies and errors that greatly contribute to the article's value to a reader of the Atlas.

The thing I wanted to open to discussion is this: I removed several of the sections that Airyn added. I don't think it's usual for us to include lists of reviews, other works by the author, etc. on pages for a particular work, unless there's something directly relevant to the encyclopedia reader about said reviews or other works. Is there some significance to those that I missed?

I could see that 4 of the 6 reviews were from the ISBN lookup page, so I figured they would be covered via inclusion of the external link. I left the foreign language edition list in because I couldn't tell where that information came from. Airyn, if you have a source for that similar to isfdb.org, maybe you would consider removing that list from the article and replacing it with an external link? Mord 05:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that the other works shouldn't be included; I also think on the reviews you don't want a list of reviews but what is worthwhile is a "Reception" section detailed what people thought of the good. (It's generally good but has some errors and makes some assumptions, I guess would be the general thrust.)

It's been a very long time since I looked at this article, but what struck me is why we even have an inconsistencies and errors section. There is no referencing or backing of it in any kind; we can't "defend" the wiki's claims here on the inconsistencies/errors as they are own research without any referencing. I appreciate it is not a big thing but does probably need looking at. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)