As I like to know as it seem I don't find it menthioned in most sources that I read, save for some fan fiction that I had read. Also about burial grounds too. So do you what to dicussed about this topic or not? Do you find it interesting and mysterious? Thanks. —Unsigned comment by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs).
- They buried the dead together in a pit after the Battle of Bywater. No other funeral practises are known, but other mass graves are not very likely. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hobbit feet, size
The main article posits that the Lord of the rings movies and other representations show hobbit feet as being larger in proportion to the rest of the body than men's feet. And it says the Tolkien's writings say nothing about this. I don't recall the movies making a point about the feet being bigger, such as in any commentary from characters. Perhaps it is mere accident that we can see that the feet are bigger on hobbits; after all, they chose to do hobbit feet by adding appliances to people's feet. Were they not something like shoes? If that's the case, as opposed to just adding fur to the top of the actors' feet with glue, then naturally the movie feet would wind up being bigger in all respects! But that would be an accident of makeup, not something for anyone to take real notice of. (For myself, I don't remember watching the movies and thinking that the feet on the hobbits look particularly big, anyway.)
And if the relative size of the feet in the referenced representations is merely an accident, and not especially noticeable, unless you're looking for it, then I contend that the main article should not say anything about it. I suppose that if this is something people are commenting on, for whatever definition of "people", then the article might mention it while at the same time discounting it as I just have. something like the following: "Some people note the relative largeness of hobbit feet in the Lord of the rings movies and other visual representations, but Tolkien never mentioned the size of hobbits' feet in any writing or speech; therefore, the relative size of such representations can and should be completely ignored, as relates to Canon."
I myself am not a regular frequenter of this site, and am unlikely to check back at any particular point, or follow up this discussion. But it seems such an obvious point to me, that it was worth throwing out for discussion amongst the regulars. Have a great day, folks! —Unsigned comment by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs).
Changing main picture
This article needs a new main picture! How about:
? --Morgan 20:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- What about Inger Edelfeldt - A Long Expected Party.jpg? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's very appropriate, indeed! +1 on Edelfeldt.--Morgan 21:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Where does it say hobbits' exact skin tone?
This article says hobbit skin is nut-brown to white. I was wondering where it says that.—SingingOrc
The prefix "Hob"
Under "Inspiration", it currently suggests a connection with German hob meaning small. Where does this come from? I can't find it in any dictionary accessible to me. Hobgoblin is among the list of examples, but Tolkien made it clear that Hobgoblin is for the larger kind, not smaller!
Per OED hob- in hobgoblin is from Hob:
"1. A familiar or rustic variation of the Christian name Robert or Robin. Hence formerly a generic name for: A rustic, a clown". "2. = Robin Goodfellow or Puck; a hobgoblin, sprite, elf"
-- Trahald 03:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll remove it for now. The text was present from the first version but it seems it was based on a misunderstanding of the element hob-. It's probably not German and we can't infer the meaning small from Tolkien's hobgoblin. The other two examples (hobbledehoy, hobyah) are even more vague in meaning and etymology. I don't think you can extract hob from them. -- Trahald (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)