Jump to content

Talk:Faramir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFaramir has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Untitled

[edit]

Blonde, anyway? I think blonde on an adult male looks ABNORMAL! By the way, does PETER JACKSON hate Faramir? Who would dislike Faramir anyhow? He's against war, sweet, and helpful (Well, he was nice to Frodo and Sam!), and I like that on a person.

Okay, I agree that Faramir was abused througout the movie series. But what Peter Jackson really tried to do was to tear him away from Eowyn so she'd like Aragorn (apparently).

In summary:

Eowyn + Aragorn = NO WAY HOZAY!

Eowyn + Faramir = YES!!!

Aragorn + Arwen = YES!!!

Hehhehheh...sorry. Well, and there is some rumor Sam and Faramir are the same age. NO WAY! SAM IS OLDER!

In summary:

Sam: age 39

Faramir: age 36

39 > 36

Hehehehe...I love anyone who is nice like Faramir. Besides, Tolkien probably intentioned for Faramir to be totally different from Boromir. Most of the time when Faramir was very little, his mother Finduilas cared for him, but Denethor hated Faramir (this has a little bit to do with Cinderella, I think, as Cinderella's stepmother hated her so much), and when Finduilas died, Boromir protected Faramir. And without Boromir, Denethor could have made Faramir do work all day and wear old torn-up clothes.

So you have it. Denethor was cruel to Faramir, and Boromir defended Faramir.

Okay. Well, here's a family tree.

[Sorry to intrude on somebody else's comment and throw off the chronology of this, but this family tree needs to be fixed. Honestly, it screws up the rest of the page. I tried fixing it, and on the preview it looked fine, but it turned out making it worse. Please revert to the original, and fix it. --queso man 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)][reply] 

 Mardil                Imrazor = Mithrellas 
    :                          :
 Turgon                        :
    |                          :
Ecthelion II                 Aglahad
    |                          |
    |                      Angelimar
    |                          |
    |                      Adrahil II
    |                          |
    |              -----------------------
    |              |           |         |
    |           Ivriniel       |      Imrahil
    |                          |         |
    |             --------------    -----------------------------
    |             |                 |         |         |       |
Denethor II = Finduilas           Elphir  Erichion    Amthoros   |
            |                        |                           |
            |                     Alphros    ---------------------
            |                                |                    
            |                    Éomer = Lothiriel                      
    -------------------              |  
    |                 |              --------
 Boromir          '''Faramir''' = Éowyn          |
                       |             |
                    Elboron        Elfwine
                       |
                    Barahir

... right. Anyway, was Faramir actually the Steward of Gondor at anytime? The brief interlude between Denethor's death and Imrahil's appointment? Considering he was unconscious the entire time, I doubt it. Oberiko 18:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was sort of a technicality. But Faramir was the one who passed over the crown to Aragorn, and he retained the office of Steward afterwards, although it returned to its earlier function (that of advisor to the King, although it was probably mostly an honorary title since Faramir didn't even live in Minas Tirith). --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"On the day of the coronation, Faramir surrendered his Stewardship. Aragorn, however, renewed the office..." Formally, it didn't work that way. Aragorn handed the Rod of the Stewards back to Faramir and told him that his office was not ended. Had Aragorn accepted the Rod, he would have become Steward. Instead, he ordered Faramir to do his job as Steward, which was to have the people accept him as King. This is perhaps a subtle point. Wastrel Way (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Eric[reply]
Amidst a not-very-good 20-year-old thread that would today be deleted per NOTFORUM ... ok, well yes, technically correct, but I doubt one reader in a thousand would detect the difference in meaning from the current text. I suppose we could say that F. "offered to surrender" the stewardship, but since we've said that A. renewed it, we've got the bases covered really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aragorn entered the city only as a Ranger of the North — not as the heir of Isildur. Thus Faramir technically reigned from the suicide of Denethor to Aragorn’s coronation (not that he had much choice in the matter). {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 21:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Faramir WAS the Steward of Gondor. As Aranel said, Faramir passed the Crown of Gondor to Aragorn, at this time Faramir says: "The last Steward of Gondor begs leave to surrender his office." (LotR, The Return of the King, The Steward and the King) It is thus clear that the office of Ruling Steward was Faramir's from the moment of Denethor's death. However, as is noted Faramir was incapacitated for much of this time. 'True' authority was exercised by Gandalf and Aragorn, with Prince Imrahil in Faramir's stead: "the Lord of Dol Amroth shall rule the City until Faramir awakes". Upon his awakening, Faramir assumed the role of Steward, primarily for the purpose of preparing for the coronation of Aragorn.

It is interesting that at his coronation Aragorn replies: "That office is not ended, and it shall be thine and thy heirs' as long as my line shall last." Appendix A (Annals of the Kings and Rulers) to the Lord of the Rings listed Denethor II as the "last of the Ruling Stewards, and was followed by his second son Faramir, Lord of Emyn Arnen, Steward to King Elessar, F.A. 82." As the death of Faramir's father and the crowning of King Elessar occurred in the year 3019 (of 3021) of the third age, and Faramir lived to the year 82 of the fourth age he held his stewardship for 84 years (assuming he did not pass it to his heir prior to his death). Therefore, although Faramir was (technically) Steward of Gondor before Aragorn's crowning as King Elessar, he was not considered among the ruling stewards.

As Anárion notes, subsequent to Aragorn's accession, Faramir became an advisor to the crown. However, his role as steward would have been more than ceremonial, still with responsibility for rule of the city/kingdom whilst the King was away (for instance when Aragorn travelled to Arnor to reestablish the northen kingdom). As for Faramir not even living in Minas Tirith, he was given "Ithilien to be his princedom", however he was to dwell within sight of Minas Tirith (in Emyn Arnen). Therefore, like Prince Imrahil, Faramir was given his own sub-territory of Gondor to officially reside in. This does not preclude having a greater than ceremonial participation in the ruling of the kingdom.

In closing, Master Samwise and Faramir ARE the same age. The Tale of Years (Appendix B) has them both born in the year 2983 of the third age.

BDB79 10:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An anonymous user at 70.181.69.136 recently added some text to this article that appears to be taken from this site. This may be a violation of the site's copyright, unless the anon is the copyright holder. I've reverted it for now, and if the anon is the copyright holder he or she can restore the text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

[edit]

Some of the quotations are from the books, some from the films. The differences should be noted. Savidan 23:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is noted. Not sure if the quotation format to note the books are correct though. If anyone does know, feel free to edit please! Mirlen 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beards

[edit]

"A minor change is that in the book, Faramir and his brother are dark-haired and lack beards, but in the movie, they have fair hair and are bearded."

The book doesn't explicitly say that Boromir and Faramir themselves are unbearded. This is probably an assumption based on the statement in Unfinished Tales that Men descended from Elves were beardless and the fact that Boromir and Faramir were descended from Imrazôr and Mithrellas through their mother Finduilas. But I've always wondered if Tolkien really meant that every single Man with any amount of Elvish ancestry, which would include Elendil, Isildur and Aragorn, was beardless. (Admittedly Imrazôr's marriage to Mithrellas was thousands of years more recent than Aragorn's Elven ancestry.)

Gildir 14:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Elves are beardless: Círdan is specifically noted for being bearded, as was Nerdanel's father Mahtan. And Legolas' father Thranduilis also described as bearded in The Hobbit. Typically beards were a sign of extremely advanced age under Elves:
'Elves did not have beards until they entered their third cycle of life. Nerdanel's father [cf. XII: 365-66 n. 61] was exceptional, being only early in his second.' VT 41 JRRT
An example of a young bearded Elf may be Beleg of Doriath, in Tolkien's painting "Taur-nu-Fuin". No assumption can be made for human descendants of Elves: the note in UT does state that Imrahil's Elvish ancestry was denoted by the fact that he didn't have a beard, but this does not mean all descendants of Elves are beardless! -- Jordi·✆ 01:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That painting has to be touched with a ten-foot pole, though. IIRC, Tolkien changed its "meaning" later towards depicting a scene in Fangorn forest. It's unclear whether he changed more than the meaning. Also, the figures are a pretty small part of the pic. While I myself used it to illustrate the notion that elvish swords are straight, I would be hard-pressed to draw conclusions as far as facial features are concerned. In any case, given elvish control over their body, it should be primarily an issue of whether an elf WANTS to have a beard. As for the quote on Nerdanel's father above, it also needs to be used with caution, a lot in the HoME are temporary notes. As for Imrahil's heritage, Tolkien goes to great length to stress that this is what people in Dol Amroth tell others of the heritage of their lords, but whether it is factual or not he leaves open. It could very well be folk tales. --OliverH 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age and hate

[edit]

Okay, I agree that Faramir was abused througout the movie series. But what Peter Jackson really tried to do was to tear him away from Eowyn so she'd like Aragorn (apparently).

In summary:

Eowyn + Aragorn = NO WAY HOZAY!

Eowyn + Faramir = YES!!!

Aragorn + Arwen = YES!!!

Peter Jackson does not hate Faramir. The issue was not whether he was likeable, but whether, in a film lacking any other demonstrations of the Ring's power, Faramir's seeming immunity to its power was believable or dramatically interesting. They didn't abuse him, they made him believable. He still let Frodo and Sam go, and acts in accordance with the book in the third film.

It had nothing to do with Eowyn's relationship with Aragorn. Need I remind you that both couples hook up the same way as in the book by the end of the third movie. Need I also remind you of Eowyn's obvious feelings for Aragorn in the book, which provoke her into following the Rohirrim into battle?

Hehhehheh...sorry. Well, and there is some rumor Sam and Faramir are the same age. NO WAY! SAM IS OLDER!

In summary:

Sam: age 39

Faramir: age 36

I don't know where you're getting your information. They ARE the same age.

From The Return of the King, Appendix B:

Year 2983: Faramir son of Denethor born. Birth of Samwise.

Kenobifan 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rank

[edit]

I have question. Does anyone know the difference between Captain of the White Tower and Captain-General/or Captain-General of the White Tower? Because Faramir inherits the title, Captain of the White Tower, after his brother's death—which from one source states that he now takes over command of Gondor's armies, but when I look up on Boromir's article on wikipedia, Captain of the White Tower is not the same thing as Captain-General of the White Tower, so I am rather confused. What is the difference? What is the position that Faramir inherits? —Mirlen 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These ranks were not clearly defined by Tolkien that I know of, but I would guess that 'Captain of Gondor' was a rank held by a fairly important military leader (note that Eärnur was heir to the throne and so called when he led Gondor's forces against Angmar) while 'Captain-General' was reserved for the overall field-commander of all Gondor's armies. It is possible that the terms were synonymous, but Captain-General usually has other connotations and it doesn't seem likely that Faramir would have been 'promoted' to the position before Boromir's death was proven. Whether there was any distinction between 'Captain-General' and 'High Warden of the White Tower' is also unclear. --CBDunkerson 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much info?

[edit]

Mirlen, thanks for all the added stuff you put, but I think it has too much information on a charecter who didn't play a huge role in the Lord of the Rings books. We all love Faramir but Damn! I think we should prune/summarize some of the info. Ted87 18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, now that you've pointed it out, maybe you're right, Ted87 :P. I admit I can carried away with my favorite characters *blushes*. I'll try to resist my temptation and cut it down a bit...or maybe a lot :P. —Mirlen 22:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really encyclopedic?

[edit]

I have just come across this article, and many similar ones, after seeing the article on Tolkien reach featured status. This article about Faramir doesn't feel very encyclopedic to me, and in places is written in the style of biographies about historical people. The article also feels to me more like a summary of the character's story-arc, which is just a different way of doing a plot summary. I have no problem with encyclopedic articles about Tolkien and his works and his influence on fantasy and so on, but this sort of article doesn't seem to add much to the encyclopedia. Isn't there a Tolkien wiki for this kind of stuff? Carcharoth 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is currently a bit overboard. There has been some discussion (above) of cutting it back. There is a Tolkien based wiki and it might be a more 'fitting' place for some of this level of detail, but Wikipedia itself incorporates an equal (and in some cases greater) level of detail for many similar topics. I think material is often put here over the TolkienWiki because of the benefits of having a single source for info on all topics. Maybe a balance will eventually be found in how much detail should be in Wikipedia and then more precise stuff will migrate to the Tolkien wiki and similar sub-projects... but it is equally possible that Wikipedia will become an 'all inclusive' source. --CBDunkerson 17:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, don't worry Carcharoth, Ted and I are working on to cut down the information. If you have any suggestions on how to cut it down, please feel free to share it. :) —Mirlen 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I corrected a typo in the lead quote, but not sure what else to suggest. I'll have a think about it. One thought I had was referencing the lead quote, but I'm not sure what standard is used here to reference the books. I'll pop that question back on the WikiProject page Carcharoth 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not level of detail per say but style. We can include as much detail as there is as long as its grounded in the books rather than fan fiction. I'd suggest—to get away from the "biography of a real person" style—organizing it by the books (i.e. sections titled "In the Similarion", "In the Two Towers", etc.). savidan(talk) (e@) 17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faramir's Pic

[edit]

Can we get a better picture of Faramir? You can barely see his face at all in the current one because of the shadow. Surely there's a better one. --::..SMI..:: 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. You do know Faramir is not real, right? All these artworks or film scenes are just based on the imagination of the artist, or the decision of a casting director. For a 'true' picture of Faramir, you need to read all the text from the books that describes his physical appearance. Carcharoth 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Evaluation

[edit]

Hello,

I have a few preliminary concerns for this article...

  • I do not believe that the Eiβmann illustrations fall under the fair use guidelines for images, which specifically states (Acceptable Images) that such images can only be used when accompanied by critical commentary. Here, they are merely being used for identification and for illustration, and the article does not actually discuss or comment on the qualities/characteristics of the images themselves.
  • I also believe a reorganization of the sections is in order: I think the concept/creation section should logically come first (as this is a fictional character), the titles/name origin section next, followed by the appearances in lit/adaptations section.

...more to follow. Thanks! --Malachirality (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per the above sections, IMO the "appearances" section esp. needs to be rewritten to emphasize that Faramir is not a real, living person. To this end, I believe the film and the literature subsections should be broken up into two completely separate sections. The depiction and information concerning Faramir in each (book and film) can then be discussed at length and in depth, with the correct heading to indicate that it is fiction (less like a biography that way).
  • If you were to split up the discussion of Faramir into books and lit, it might also allow you to actually provide the critical commentary that is necessary (IMHO) to justify the fair use images.
  • There are also a few, nitpicky stylistic problems with the prose as well. If you'll notice, most "paragraphs" in the article are only a few sentences and three or four lines in length. This is usually a product of underdeveloped ideas and choppy transitions. You can fix this by making your coverage of the subject deeper, while making sure there is enough context (i.e. wlinks or explanations of the various characters, settings, etc.) so that someone unfamiliar with the LOTR universe can read the article.
  • In short, I believe a thorough reorganization is probably the most important thing for this article. By moving the "creations/conception" section up to first, you will help establish that this is not a biography of a real person. I believe the etymology/"name derivation" should also be moved into this creation section, while the "titles" portion should be moved into the section concerning the literature (since they aren't real titles and positions). Then, in discussing Faramir's character, appearance, behavior, etc., you should tell the reader where each piece of information comes from (In the Silmarillion, Tolkein establishes that...), furthering entrenching the idea of the fictional character. In the process, you could also draw upon the EiBmann illustrations when describing "Faramir in literature", thus allowing you to definitely use the fair use images.

The above are preliminary musings and first impressions from me. Feel free to discuss any doubts, concerns, or disagreeing opinions below. We'll see where the article is in a week. Thanks! Malachirality (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a fair point concerning fair use of images. I know you have stated that you may be wrong since the images have stayed up this long without critical commentary, but it seems to me that most images in fictional articles don't follow up with a critical commentary — thus, presenting what potentially may be a wide-spread problem for fictional articles. Earlier, you stated that "For example, you could discuss specifically Faramir's depiction in the EiBmann illustrations (as either part of lit, part of adaptations, or in a separate section), and compare it to the 'canon' descriptions in the text." If I were to provide the critical commentary myself, I would be treading into WP:OR. I don't think there are primary or secondary sources out there that compare Anke's illustrations (or even for most of the film images, for that matter) with the canon descriptions of the text. However, if the artist himself/herself were to describe what canon description he/she used to draw a certain piece of art, couldn't that count as critical commentary even if the commentary/note is not as detailed or analytical as that of a scholar's?
I'm not sure moving up the creations/conception section before the Appearances section is necessary. HOWEVER, before I comment any more, let me experiment with the reorganization and reorder of the headings as you recommend, because it's an intriguing suggestion... Also, I'll be editing and improving the article here, because editing directly onto the article and experimenting with the layout of the headings rather drastically would completely contradict the current standards of WP:Me, which I am a member of. If my tweaks end up being favorable to the concensus of WP:Me and interested editors outside of the WikiProject, then I'll propose a revamp of the headings. After concensus is reach, I'll directly transfer the new layout of the headings to this article. I whole-heartedly invite you to edit the test page and/or comment on the talk page over there. :)
Thanks for the stylistic prose critique, it was helpful and should be taken care of in due course. On a similar note, the articles does make attempt to establish the different novels. I'll see if I can fix the prose to reflect a more OOU perspective, and come up with varities of "Tolkien [insert verb] in [insert book]" as so not to repetitive when starting off or ending that phrase in a majority of the sentences. I am open to suggestions on that. —Mirlen 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malachirality has actually brought up several common points of ME articles that I felt to be defective myself. I've started a discussion on the arrangement of sections at the Standards talk page. Mirlen, with your permission, I'll edit your sandbox in this and other respects.
In respect of Eißmann's images: they should likewise be an object of a centralised discussion, but at the moment I don't want to embark upon starting it, as that would be a colossal process. I think we could leave them as they are for now, possibly adding a commentary note; Maedhros got GA status with similar ones intact (though in general I suppose two images by an artist would do, one in "Portrayal" section and possibly one in "History").
If I have some free time, I'll rewrite the "Literature" section into OOU, and possibly expand "Concept and creation". Súrendil (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit ahead, Súrendil, my dear! Malachirality, with respect to the organization of sections, you should check out the discussion here. —Mirlen 01:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I'd like to see some expansion in the lede as well as a few prose tweaks to hopefully improve the flow of the article
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    some statements need sources, especially direct quotations
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I share the concerns about the fair use of the illustrations, and they would probably be best whittled down to one, at most two by the artist.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Details:

  • Lede, I'd like to see a bit more in the lede. There is quite a lot in the Appearances section that could be summarized into the lede, Likewise the Concept section, the fact that Faramir's appearance was a surprise to Tolkien should probably be in the lede.
  • Appearances section, Literature subsection. The first few paragraphs are very short and stubby, making the text flow choppy in this section. Consider merging or expanding the paragraphs to make the prose flow easier.
  • Same section and subsection, the parantage of Faramir needs a citation if it's going to stand alone as a paragraph. If you merge it with the next sentence, the citation on that paragraph will cover the sentence.
  • Likewise the last sentence of the third paragraph and a number of the paragraphs after the dream quotation. Much of these paragraphs are unsourced and should probably be sourced. Note that I don't write articles on fictional subjects, so if there is an exception in WP:Fiction, please let me know.
  • Same section, Adaptations subsection. the first paragraph is short and choppy and unsourced.
  • Same section and subsection, The second paragraph, last sentence is unsourced.
  • Same section and subsection, fifth paragraph. The first sentence, I would reword the second phrase to "for these fans, Faramir..." to make it clear that it is the fans being referred to, not the cast and crew.
  • Same section, sixth and seventh paragraph need citations, exspecially the quotation in the seventh paragraph. Quotations should always be cited.
  • Names and titles section, second paragraph, you guessed it, needs a citation.
  • Concept and creation, the second paragraph jumps to a subject about thee and thou that is very abrupt. Perhaps rework it so that the flow between the first paragraph and the second makes more sense.
  • The pictures give me concerns, as using three copyrighted works when you're not discussing those works themselves in the article is probably pushing fair use doctrine too far. Whittle it down to one or at most two. THe movie still strikes me as being used to ID the actor, so probably is safe enough. I'd really rather see no artistic pictures at all. Perhaps a scan of the original copy of Two Towers if you really feel a picture is necessary, which honestly I don't. I'd pass the article easier if it had none, honestly.
  • Malachriality's suggestion of a reorg on the article makes sense, and would definitely be useful if you try to take the article to FA. However, this layout works for me fine also.

Overall, a good article. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address these concerns. Please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page with any questions or concerns.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, substantial progress has already been made on some of these points in the sandbox version, especially on the lead and sourcing. Working upon the rest ;) Súrendil (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okies, I'm more than happy to extend the hold for a bit (not forever) if progress is being made. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's progress coming on this? Just checking in. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Anyone? Ealdgyth | Talk 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my side, progress is slow - session exams, see. However, Psyche825 has seemingly also embarked on this task, and I will still do what I can. Can you note what should yet be improved in the sandbox version? Súrendil (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Portrayal sections still has some subsections that are stubby and short. Lede is much improved. Things look much better, although if you're going to try for FA, you'll want to avoid wikilinking things in direct quotations. Supposedly, we're supposed to avoid that sort of thing. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the sections throughout the article, and added and updated several references. If anyone can find more "official" articles discussing Andrew Seear's voice acting in BBC's 1981 radio adaptation, that would be wonderful. What do you think, Ealdgyth? And interesting bit about avoiding wikilinks in direct quotations. Thanks for the tip. —Mirlen 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but I still have concerns over the number of Fair use images in the article. About ready to move it over to the mainspace?Ealdgyth | Talk 20:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Súrendil has suggested, perhaps a commentary note can be added — since reorganizing the fair use images and expanding on commentary is not a simple, small process. Otherwise, I think I'll move it over to the mainspace, and see if other editors have suggestions or edits to go about with the commentary. —Mirlen 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drop me a note on my talk page when you're ready for me to evaluate it again. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not having heard anything, I went ahead and relooked. It passes, although I continue to have concerns about the number of fair use images. That should probably be addressed before FA, as well as a couple of spots that could use citations, etc. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I was unable to work further on the article concerning fair use images due to school work, forgive me. But the deal with fair use images in Faramir's article is only a small piece in a jigsaw puzzle, so I'll bring it up with the wikiproject to deal with the probable general problem. —MirlenTalk 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faramir and Ithilien

[edit]

How probable is it that 'militarily inclined younger brothers' of the High Steward (or his heir) were given Ithilien as a domain to prevent the 'powerful uncle interfering in the affairs of, or deposing the young ruling nephew' syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.174.10 (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to infobox

[edit]

See discussion here. It started as a debate on whether the infobox should be removed from Saruman after a recent GA fail, but has moved on to proposed changes to the M-e character infoboxes to make them less in-universe, as required by Wikipedia's guidelines on writing about fiction. All comments welcome. 4u1e (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faramir. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Faramir. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faramir. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fan art

[edit]

Begin discussion moved from user talk:Elphion -- Elphion (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Elphion,

Do you mind pointing me to the long-standing project guideline forbidding fan art in Wikipedia infoboxes? As far as I can see, similar art lives perfectly fine at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faramir and https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faramir (in the latter case, it is in fact specifically called out as "fan art").

WRT to the image for Finduilas of Dol Amroth, there was only one question about the origin of the drawing when it was initially added (failed to follow the correct image upload procedure), but it has never been challenged for being "fan art".

Upon some investigation, I've found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_image_deletion, which says, "Images may be deleted on Wikipedia if they do not conform to our image use policy or if they are no longer needed." At the same time, I've scrutinized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and could not find any sign of fan art being forbidden. These images also seem to comply with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead, since they are "natural and appropriate representations of the topic". This can be backed by the exact character descriptions by J. R. R. Tolkien.

UPDATE: Guess I'll revert your changes for now. Please feel free to roll them forward with an explanation backed by links to relevant Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murzwin (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murzwin (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over time at [1]. The last entry there sums it up best: fan images are not a WP:RS. -- Elphion (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link and sorry for the little delay! I've followed the advice of De728631 and added the "(fan art, drawn after Tolkien's writings)" clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murzwin (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are not notable images and have no reliable source; they have no business in WP articles. -- Elphion (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does one define the drawings' "notability"? I guess not through a single-handed decision? Do you believe https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Faramir-tj01.JPG/368px-Faramir-tj01.JPG with a heavily distorted skull/face geometry (from the Spanish/French article) is more notable? Also, both of the removed drawings have been previously published on DeviantArt: https://www.deviantart.com/murzwin/art/Faramir-785712653 and https://www.deviantart.com/murzwin/art/Lady-Finduilas-of-Gondor-of-Dol-Amroth-785237390 (the color version of Finduilas – does that one work better?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murzwin (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

End moved discussion Elphion (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not edit the Spanish or French WPs, so I won't speak to their guidelines for allowing fan art. As explained above, the English WP discourages fan art because the artists are not recognized authorities on Tolkien's vision, and the generally self-published repositories (like DeviantArt) are about as far as you can get from WP:RS. WP is an encyclopedia; it was never meant to be an exhibition space for contributed artwork. -- Elphion (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know The Lord of the Rings rather well, for I have read it many times and it's been my favourite book since 1988. Thus, I know virtually everything J.R.R. Tolkien has written about Faramir. Faramir had grey eyes: "Doubt was in the grey eyes that gazed steadily at Frodo". (The Two Towers, Book 4, Ch. The Window on the West). He had raven hair: "... and their hair, raven and golden..." (The Return of the King, Book 6, Ch. The Steward and the King). He was а young man: "... to tell this grave young man..." (The Two Towers, Book 4, Ch. The Window on the West). His appearance was like his father's: "...Faramir the younger was like him in looks" (Appendix A, The Stewards) and, according to Tolkien, Denethor had "carven face with its proud bones" (The Return of the King, Book 5, Ch. Minas Tirith). Faramir was handsome: "... looking on the fair face of Faramir..." (The Houses of the Healing, Book 5, Ch. The Return of the King). And Faramir was beardless. Tolkien wrote that elves' descendants were beardless and Faramir was a descendant of Imrazor and elf Mithrellas: "... there is a discussion of the Elvish strain in Men, as to its being observable in the beardlessness of those who were so descended (it was a characteristic of all Elves to be beardless), and it is here noted in connection with the princely house of Dol Amroth..." (Unfinished Tales, History of Celeborn and Galadriel). Given all of the above, I tried my best to render Faramir following Tolkien's description as closely as possible. I naturally have no intent of promoting myself through WP; my goal was to exactly create an image of Faramir according to the book, which is unfortunately not the case with most of the art found on the Internet. -- Murzwin (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's all true. But it doesn't answer my points above. WP:RS is the essence of Wikipedia. A person's opinion, no matter how well-informed, is not by itself a reliable source. -- Elphion (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of First..Last in infobox

[edit]

I've restored the status quo ante as we'd already had a discussion on the matter - there seems no point whatsoever on messing about with the infobox with details with Lord of the Rings. The whole thing is one book. I suggest we just say it's in Lord of the Rings and leave it at that. The fact that the publisher divided it into 3 parts and gave them names isn't terribly relevant to the character. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faramir&oldid=1214645655"