Talk:Sauron

Adding multiple species named after the character ...

Atomix330, thank you for your intention to improve this article and Wikipedia's coverage of Middle-earth topics. However, this matter has been discussed many times before both in the context of this article and on many others.

Basically, taxonomists have gleefully descended on Tolkien's rich fund of exotic-sounding names, and have applied them pretty much randomly to a large number of species; astronomers have done much the same for stars, planets, planetoids, moons, mountains and a lot else. So have lots of other people for other sorts of object.

The (enormous) List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works includes a (long) section on Taxonomy. There is sometimes a faint sort of link to the individual name (yeah, it's a ring-shaped eyespot so let's name it after the Eye of Sauron (gosh, original).

The Wikiproject decided long ago to make a single list of all of this (let's call it TYPE A naming), rather than cluttering up dozens of articles with "And astronomers have named abc after ...[1][2][3] and taxonomists have named def, ghi, and jkl after ... [4][5][6]" to no useful purpose.

VERY occasionally, someone closely connected to Tolkien's work has done some much more specific naming. A rare event of this kind (let's call it TYPE B) has occurred with Kirill Eskov, author of The Last Ringbearer (Sauron and the Orcs were good blokes, on the wrong side of history). Eskov is also a zoologist, and yes, he has named a Sauron spider. Now, that is what we can agree is a genuine connection.

The other names you have seen in the media (and yes, the fact that there are several really is a clue to their individual insignificance, even if each scientist thought they were being terribly original) are all of TYPE A, and we can freely add them to the List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works. They do not belong here in the Sauron article as they really don't have any organic connection to it. I do hope this is clear. I'll remove them from this article now; you can put them in the list article under Taxonomy if you have the energy and enthusiasm. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

As well intentioned as that may be, then by this logic, mention of astronomical objects that may bear a passing resemblance to the Eye of Sauron should be removed as well. It is common practice in subject articles to provide the links to items named after the subject - according to the list List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works article, the number of taxonomical entries for Sauron is 6, only one of which features in this article.

According to this article, Sauron has been the inspiration for 4 listed astronomical objects/phenomena, and one scientific instrument - they are all what you might call 'Type A' names. The lines that mention these items has been cribbed from/into the list article linked above.

I would also note, that a similar section in the article on the Balrog is quite happy to mention the 'Type A' connections of the Balrog to species of ant!

So I am not entirely sure what the issue is here? You have to have balance and consistency - but we can weigh the relative importance of leafhoppers versus butterflies versus spiral galaxies ad infinitum. Atomix330 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

On this WikiProject we try quite hard for balance and consistency. We certainly don't need heavy duplication between the List and all-the-articles. I agree that the Balrog ants should be removed from that Article; and I note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument for doing something that doesn't make much sense. On the astronomy, the names certainly belong in the List; the rather striking Eye of Sauron object has perhaps a moderately strong case for being in the Article as well. I've explained above exactly why the one Sauron taxon is rather special; of all the taxa named for all Middle-earth items, it has I think the strongest and clearest case for being in its article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no harm in making mention of the rest, especially if they are notable enough to have their own entries on Wikipedia (however small or large). I have restored these mentions in a similar style to the astronomical objects. I do not want to start an edit war, and these additions do nothing to detract from the quality of the article. It is a fair addition.

That is I'm afraid a muddle: you say one thing, that you don't want an edit war in both edit comment (!) and here in what is an ongoing talk page discussion, but you do exactly the opposite and create one, when you know that is contrary to policy, and that your action is not agreed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

An alternative would be to direct readers directly to the list article. Which I suspect you would agree is (stylistically) untidy. Atomix330 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the direction would be entirely appropriate, I should have done it already, so let's do it now since we agree on that much. Further, since we agree it is an alternative, it would be much appreciated if you could remove the added text, which is redundant to the list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien has not only created a huge cultural impact with his works, he has also flooded the market with a vast number of original and (mostly) euphonious names ripe for exploitation. (I can't find an overarching 'Cultural impact of Tolkien/Middle-earth' article; either I've missed the name somehow or the topic is too vast for one article.) On the whole, the fact that a mountain/crater/butterfly on a moon/asteroid/rainforest has been named after Sauron/Frodo/Wormtongue tells us nothing about Tolkien's original character (which the article is about), almost nothing about that character's cultural impact (which is a legitimate area for the article to explore), and very little about Tolkien's impact in general (other than it exists). This and similar articles should be telling us about Tolkien's characters, including why they are influential in wider culture.

I suggest that the Tolkienian naming of objects be left to the list article, except in cases where there is not only documented usage of the name, but also discussion of that usage by reliable secondary sources. That way the article can contribute some understanding of why that use of the name is significant, and not just record a statistic. By this standard, the astronomical and zoological uses mentioned in this article would not stand (even the Eskov item doesn't tell us why the naming is significant to the character); but the part about influence on later literature and graphic novels is relevant to Sauron's actual character. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. We should go through the various articles and remove astro/zoo/other trivia UNLESS there is a genuine, strong reason in a particular case. I'd defend the Eskov link as it's culturally significant, but remove many others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree there is absolutely zero need for the inclusion of named flora, fauna and various other phenomena in the Sauron article, especially where said linkage is either tenuous or merely exists without citations to third party sources that discuss the cultural impact. Just because someone names their burning ring of fire after Sauron does not make it notable for inclusion - I’d even go so far as to remove entries from the list article if they’re not discussed in context of their cultural impact rather than just being a collection of names we the editors have curated. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'm a bit sorry to see the astronomical image and Eskov narrative (my additions, long ago) vanish, but if it avoids this sort of trouble across all the articles, it's worth it. I'll take them out now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of articles titled 'Cultural impact of...'. I'm sure there is room for a Tolkien one, where these items can be added and integrated into a wider story. But having said that, it's a bigger project than I'm prepared to tackle. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 08:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Would second this. I'm not sure how it is best to integrate a direction to something that discusses wider cultural impact/homages to Tolkien. Atomix330 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sauroniops ?

I know that there are a particularly huge number of taxa named after the character Sauron, but I find it a bit unfortunate that the most emblematic animal named after him, Sauroniops, which is nevertheless a large imposing dinosaur of the Carcharodontosauridae family, is not mentioned on this page. So you wouldn't mind if I inserted a slight paragraph regarding its taxonomy? Amirani1746 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite see how a controversial genus of uncertain provenance can be most emblematic of anything except the difficulties of dinosaur taxonomy. It is already in List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works; I would leave it there. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. The list of taxa is enormous and growing, so the last thing we want to do is encourage people to add them all over the WikiProject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)