Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10


Community

Roll call: October – Mid-November

Sign your name below and comments are optional.

  1. A lot of 'To dos', but regretably not so much of a progress. I will try to strike one off my list before October ends. —Mirlen 00:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think that the Faramir article is making wonderful progress. The template decisions are helping and the new cannon template adds a few touches of sophistication to the articles I think. - KaoBear(talk) 02:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hoping to get started helping out here soon... Just gotta pick something on the to-do list and then find the time to work at it, I suppose. :) ~Dragon of Cavel 8:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Here again. Uthanc 08:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) School's starting in a few days (guess what level), so I might not be able to contribute as much. Uthanc 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Hey everyone! Sorry I was gone for a little bit there. I was getting started with school and all that comes with it so things were kind of chaotic. I hope I will be able to participate in things more now that my school has settled down. --Merond e 15:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Still busy in real life, study etc. I will be watching the polls and discussions, and probably do some very minor fixes if I come across them. I do however not plan any big edits. Bryan 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I'm quite sure I don't have any time until the end of the year, so I unsubscribe from this WikiProject. I will keep it on my watchlist however, and hope to be of a little more help next year. Bryan 10:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Are we going to get back to getting Middle-earth back up to FA status? - jc37 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Just watching my 'Watchlist' articles. Will probably work on one or two speific articles and concentrate on those. --Ted87 23:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Busy, but present. Not currently planning a "special project". -- Jordi·✆ 07:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Still here. A bit distracted by non-Tolkien stuff at present, but still have getting Middle-earth back to FA status on my list. That's me and Jc37 so far. Anyone else want to join us? Carcharoth 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. I'm around. Haven't been as busy as I'd hoped I'd be, but I have been planning on doing some edits to the Tom Bombadil article to make it a bit less fancruft-ridden. I also might do a little bit of work on Faramir, we'll have to see. Sighter Goliant 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. I would like to assist in the research and development of the ME project in any way possible. Elruin 2:23 9 October 2006
  13. Still here, just been a little bogged down with school and all. Dhawk1964 22:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Hello! Noob here, although I have been cutting my wiki-code teeth on [http:/eq2i.com EQ2i], a wiki for EverQuest 2 information. I am a programmer by trade and Tolkien enthusuast since I was 11 (a LONG time ago). My uncle, who introduced me to Tolkien by reading the Hobbit to me a few pages at a time a bedtime when he was visiting one summer) and I used to write all our letters to each other using the Tengwar alphabet :) True geek stuff here. Looking forward to contributing. I am FINALLY reading the Book of Lost Tales right now... --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 22:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Still around, but kind of tied up these days. --Gil-galad1 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Here and doing watchlist stuff, but alot of other things going on right now. --CBD 11:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. I just joined this group last night and was wondering where am I needed most? Also, could someone look at the discussion for Namárië? Thanks. I can't wait to get started. --Eruhildo 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. I'm here, but continue to lurk in the shadows. --Thisisbossi 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. I'm here too, but I can't spend hours working on here. I can browse around and do boring grunt work if needed. Rochelle CMN 19:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues

Family templates

Again, this an old plan, but I'm bringing it up again because it's time it stirred from the dirt where it resided incomplete for quite a time. I think it would be better if we deleted the family trees templates. The only purpose in creating templates for the family trees in the first place was because the templates would be posted on respective character articles, but I see that as unnecessary space use since it would be easier and more cleaner to have a link of the family (where it would have the family tree) article. For an example, the House of Finwë article has a family tree in its respective section (but no template is used), and characters belonging of that House, such as Maedhros, have a link to the House of Finwë article. This goes the same for Faramir [article] and the House of Húrin. Comments? —Mirlen 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however one of the drawbacks would be to the family tree pages that are largely pahges with no articles of their own. Halfelven and the like would be very rarely linked to, or am I babbling here? - KaoBear(talk) 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about putting trees directly on pages or pushing them off onto template pages. The latter takes one more step to create but it gives the option of including the tree on multiple pages.
But are there opinions on whether trees should be done using fixed-pitch font, or using Template:Familytree? (Compare House of Eorl with Talk:House of Eorl.) The latter seems a bit slicker, but it makes for a rather low-density page.
—wwoods 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Kaobear: The articles for families may be just stubs as of now, but stubs can be expanded. And the Half-elven would be every much linked to — look at all the prominent characters that came out of that line! The House of Fingolfin (Fingolfin, Turgon, Idril), House of Hador (Tuor), House of Bëor (Beren), of Thingol and Melian: Lúthien, Eärendil, Galadriel, Celeborn, Elrond, Elros, Aragorn, Arwen, etc. (There would be overlaps with the Half-eleven with the aforementioned houses.) Or have I missed your point completely?
Actually, i think I missed my point completely. Whatever nonsense came out of that comment I do apologize for, I believe it was either incredibly late or just the opposite. Of course Half-Elven is important. Good job catching the oops there Mirlen. - KaoBear(talk) 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Wwoods: Yup, this issue was discussed months ago back in March here. I like the graphical style using ASCII art, but it takes too much space. I also experimented with the slicker style with the traditional style with the {{Húrin}} template, but I found that with the graphical style, I had to cut down on the family members, or else the family tree size would've taken up too much space. With the plainer style, I was able to fit all of them in (but the family tree is remains long as you can see). —Mirlen 04:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I am partial to nav templates and I think they provide both a considerable amount of visual information as well as an easy way to navigate around. I don't think the space they fill up in an article is a negative. Particularly as long as the pages don't get too terribly clogged with templates--like I have done with my new geography templates. :-) Irongargoyle 02:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Kaobear: No problem, we all make mistakes (and I believe my brain went off to vacation without me). :)
Irongargoyle: If you can manage to fit the members of House of Húrin in ASCII format without taking a considerable amount of space in the article, mark me impressed and ship me off to...favorably Italy, though I suppose that wouldn't be possible. :P (And your geography templates are absolutely wonderful. A big, valuable addition this WP.) —Mirlen 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to use fixed-pitch graphics. —Mirlen 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll

There has been a question of debate in whether the traditional style which uses fixed-pitch font (e.g. Talk:House of Eorl) or the newer graphical style which uses templates with ASCII art (e.g. House of Eorl) should be used for family trees. Arguments for both styles can be read above. As a participant of WP:Me, please vote and add your opinion to the respective sections.

ASCII art (House of Eorl style)

  1. KaoBear(talk) 10:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed-pitch graphics (Talk:House of Eorl style)

  1. Dragon of Cavel 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Irongargoyle 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Merond e 16:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. -- Jordi·✆ 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Uthanc 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC) - Boxes should be smaller, like those in Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II.

Comments

  • Kaobear: I like the way it looks, hokey as that may sound - KaoBear(talk) 10:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dragon of Cavel: Even though the fixed-pitch font does seem more traditional, I think the ASCII art style makes it clearer and easier for someone viewing the page to understand visually. It just makes everything neater, in my opinion. In a way, it appears more formal-looking. ~Dragon of Cavel 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Uthanc: Isn't the ASCII style the non-template/fixed pitch version (House of Eorl, ASCII; Talk: House of Eorl, fixed pitch)? The examples above seem interchanged, so I used these ones. The ASCII style looks tricky to type out; the template looks cleaner and "Powerpointish", but is much longer - but we'll be copy-pasting both anyway. Judging for space considerations I'd support ASCII within character articles. Uthanc 03:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't really sure of the official titles — from what Wwoods had said, it seemed that fixed pitch font was referring to the plainer style and from earlier discussions, ASCII art was referring to the graphical style. If you know I'm wrong, Uthanc, please feel free to edit the poll to its proper terms. And by your last statement when you mentioned that you'd support ASCII, do you mean by the the font version or the graphical version? (Also, everyone, you don't have to type and bold your name before your comments.) —Mirlen 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've added more confusion... I support ASCII art within appropriate articles, keeping space considerations in mind. Graphical fixed-pitch templates are nice but they take up more space (depending on the character); maybe these can be used also, for main family tree pages. Uthanc 22:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh no, you cleared up the fact that I had the terms mixed up. Thanks! :) I think there should be a consistency of family tree styles for Tolkien articles. The problem with having family tree templates within character articles is because I feel it takes up needless and redundant space. Long article sizes covering fictional material is discouraged in Wikipedia because that is labeled as fancruft (also see WP:FICT). Some characters, such as Aragorn, have a lot of information, especially where their biographies are concerned, and I feel that space used for family trees can be put to use for more useful items of information. Also, I'm not sure of how real-world critics would react if we included a family tree within a character article when undergoing FA peer review process. (We recently had a conflict with tense issues and regarding its FA position because of those tense issues in The Lord of the Rings article.)
But the main questions that we need to answer when evaluting include:
  1. To what extent of importance does a family tree within a character article play? Does it match the level of importance with the information regarding appearances, characteristics, and the concept and creation of a character?
  2. Is it the sort of information that is absoutely needed for a general audience (we Tolkien fans often forget that Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not a Tolkien wiki) placed within a character article?
  3. If family trees are of importance, then why do most articles concerning living people (which are given more priority and importance over articles covering fictional people), especially those of prominent family lines such as Julio-Claudians, Roosevelts, Kennedys, or the Yorks, don't have family trees within his/her article?
Also, I agree with you that graphical fixed-pitch templates take up a lot of space (e.g. Noldor). —Mirlen 23:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a family tree is not necessarily an important part of a main article about a character. Heritage does not often do much to give insight into who a person is, especially, as you said, as far as information for the general audience is concerned. However, family trees are a point of interest for a lot of Middle-earth fans, and articles such as Faramir do have tags leading to their respective family trees. That seems a much better approach than sticking a family tree right in the middle of a character article. Then the trees can still be found by fans who are looking, but it doesn't clog up the articles for those who aren't. Plus, the graphical style tree would not seem to take up so much space if it was an article unto itself, I think. Of course this probably only works for family trees that are prominent enough to be included in a page to themselves, but smaller family trees don't even need to be drawn out as a tree if it's small enough. The relatives of the character could be easily referenced in the article itself.
Forgive me if I am a little forward for someone brand new to this project. :( ~Dragon of Cavel 09:11, 1 October 2006
If we just link to the family trees, either format will do... but the ASCII art is more concise. But the trees are by themselves anyway. Uthanc 13:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Dragon of Cavel: Agreed. Also, don't worry about being "a little forward" — be bold, but not reckless is one of Wikipedia's guidelines. :) And participation doesn't ever hurt this WP, so whether or not you're a newbie doesn't matter so much as long as you've read the general policies and guideliness of Wikipedia.
Uthanc: So you'd vote for the House of Eorl style (which I now understand it to be ASCII art)? —Mirlen 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Kennedy family does have a fixed-pitch tree. Note, though, Noldor's fixed-pitch tree is more compact than Talk:House of Eorl's, due to box size. Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II also has a smaller-boxed tree. Fixed-pitch looks fancier, but ASCII is more compact. Looks versus conciseness... Argh, I'm actually undecided now, as the trees should generally be on separate pages anyway. Uthanc 13:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather undecided now, too, although I voted for the fixed-pitch tree before... It all comes down to whether appearance or compactness is more important. Personally, I still vote for the Talk:House of Eorl style when pushed to a decision. A nice, neat, clean-looking page looks...well..."respectable", I suppose, even if it takes up a little more room. When most people go to a webpage, the first thing they judge by is appearance. The large size is only a problem if the tree is within a character article, which I don't think it should be, anyway. Dragon of Cavel 11:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Merond e: Somebody needs to fix the instructions of the poll to match the changes made to the two sections (fixed pitch and ASCII). I like the Talk:House of Eorl style better because it looks neater. The House of Eorl style (in my opinion) looks kind of sloppy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merond e (talk • contribs)
My 2 cents. I have done some genealogy work, and I must say that although the fixed-pitch tables look nice, they are NOT as easilt readable as the ASCII table. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
With a little tweaking the fixed-pitch versions can be more legible than the ASCII tables even. Plus, they're a lot easier to maintain. -- Jordi·✆ 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I really like the style that's on Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II article. It's smaller and more concise than the one on the Talk:House of Eorl page, and not to mention it looks a whole lot nicer than the ASCII art. Anyone else here in favor of the style on the William I to Elizabeth II family tree (it also matches the color of the infoboxes as well)? —Mirlen 05:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In favor of fixed-pitch now; namely the smaller boxes of Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II, as Mirlen says. (Fixed question switcharound.) Uthanc 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the poll is in favor of Fixed-pitch graphics. We need to work on those trees. Uthanc 15:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Books in Template: Tolkienchar

Wwoods asked me this:

You added LOTR to the infoboxes for Elendil and his sons. Obviously they get talked about a lot, but do they really make an appearance? I haven't reread the book recently, but I don't think so. Am I missing something, or are you using a broader guage of relevance? I see the template talk page doesn't give any guidance.

I replied:

You're right, they don't make an appearance themselves, since they're all dead by the point LOTR starts. Elrond and co. only talk about them. I'll just add "mentioned only". But they also appear in The Silmarillion, but that purports to be a history, so they're also dead when the author is writing...

I haven't added "mentioned only" yet... Should we note that this character is only mentioned and doesn't appear himself story-internally? Because he does, externally. And should we use The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, or just The Lord of the Rings? While the latter is less precise it'll help emphasize that LOTR isn't a trilogy. Uthanc 13:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Carcharoth has made categories of 'Characters in The Lord of the Rings' or 'Characters in The Silmarillion' or 'Characters in The Hobbit', which was what I had the Book(s) field based on. Characters that make an appearance in the book — being mentioned doesn't count. If they are crucial in a story in which they are mentioned in, then that can be talked about in the introduction. Also, we should put the seperate titles because not all characters appear in all three books. For example, Arwen is only in the first and third book while Faramir and Eowyn are in the last two. Beregond only makes an appearance in the third book while Damrod (man) only makes an apperance in the second book. I think accuracy is the best best we should go for. —Mirlen 15:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
But for characters that do appear throughout the story—Aragorn, Frodo, Gandalf, etc.—is there a need to list the three book titles? When I was updating the infoboxes, that was the standard I used:
all three books -> LOTR;
one or two -> FR, TT, and/or RK.
—wwoods 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
But wouldn't it be best to be consistent? Or rather, how about this?
Infobox: List seperate books out, even if character in all three books (FotR, TTT, TRotK)
Introduction: Only need to put LotR; no need to list the seperate titles out. For example, in Aragorn's page: In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, Aragorn is a fictional character who played a crucial role in The Lord of the Rings... — or something along those lines. —Mirlen 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

More article assessment stuff

The article assessment bot has created some nice pages for us (after we created some manually to start the process). Now we need to get busy assessing the articles! Also, I think articles are added on the basis of whether they have the Wikiproject template on the talk page, so if you spot any articles without those, please add the template. Anyway, the nice pages I'm referring to are here, here, and here. That last one shows only 7 of 1023 articles have been assessed (though some of those 1023 articles might be redirects that still have templates on their talk pages). The activity of people adding and changing assessments can be seen here. Carcharoth 10:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to create critrea for the quality and importance scale, use the standard Wikipedia assessment, or just go by our own judgement? --Ted87 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
By Wikipedia assessment, but if there is a need, we will make the criteria for quality and importance scale more specialized for Tolkien articles. For WP:Me assessment, click here. —Mirlen 02:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings on Main Page!!

The Lord of the Rings is on the Main Page. If someone had remembered to keep an eye on the featured article queue for the main page, we might have been a bit more prepared! Please can everyone keep an eye on the article over the next 24 hours or so, as there will be a lot of vandalism, and also some good edits. Let's try and keep the article looking good. Carcharoth 02:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article got a lot of exposure. Some discussion about this is here. Carcharoth 09:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sections removed

User:201 is a confirmed sockpuppet of a blocked user. All of his edits are subject to reversion." CovenantD 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Following that message, the two sections started by User:201 have been removed - see page version here for full details of the sections. The infobox has been retained, but the image has been removed (it is copyrighted and only allowed as fair use on the Tolkien article). The navbox discussion wasn't going anywhere either, though I'd appreciate if someone could check to see what else was changed. Carcharoth 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

ME-project banner

Just so you guys know, I'm working on adding your {{ME-project}} to all the articles found in Category:Middle-earth using AWB because they are all within your scope. Also Category:Tolkien. Cbrown1023 15:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{ME-project}} tag to 523 articles. I also created the classes Cat and Template on the template per a request by another user. Your formating is weird, so you have to edit it so that it doesn't ask for importance. Cbrown1023 02:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Cbrown1023. :) I don't know too much about the automatic categorizing, so I can't elaborate on it. The classes Cat and Template have seperate headers of their own. {{ME-project}} is used for articles (hence why the word article is included and not other words), {{ME-category}} for Tolkien categories. I would lump categories and templates in one banner and article in another seperately. Perhaps we should move the Cat and Template classes to the {{ME-category}}? (For the list of templates and what each function, I highly reccomend visiting this page.) —Mirlen 03:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the labelling of the category and template pages using this template should be undone. Use separate templates to label them, though remember that this will probably duplicate work already done in populating Category:WikiProject Middle-earth templates. I never categorised the categories, as that is just silly (a list would be nice). Actually, the template categorises the talk page, so that is OK! Discussion has also been taking place at User talk:Cbrown1023. Carcharoth 11:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Awesome :). Briefly reading your last comment on the discussion (I'll read the full discussion later), Carcharoth, I agree with you that category template should be placed on talk pages on categories. I'm going to place the category template on the talk pages instead of the front, so if you want to join me in my little quest, feel free to do so! *goes off to edit Me:T* —Mirlen 04:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Language Tree should be renovated in the structure of the Project.

With this distinctions:

a) Quenya. There's should be a difference between Pre-record Quenya (as sucessfully examined by HF) that leads to Quenya Vanyarin (Quendya) and Quenya Noldorin (Classic Quenya). The latter will lead also to the Exilic Quenya (and possibile if we want to insert it, Quenya 3rd Age).

b) Common Eldarin. With the division of the CE branch, we have the Pre-record Quenya and the Common Lindarin. The latter will differentiate in Common Nandorin and Common Telerin.

c) Common Telerin > Old Sindarin >

a)North Sindarin Branch > Mithrim :b)South Sindarin Branch >
a)Doriathrim (Doriathrin is another language devised before the 40s)
b)Falathrim (which is the Western Branch of the Sindarin family, this branch is the one we usaully call "Sindarin". | Falathrin is another language present in the Etym.)

Please note the Falathrin ≠ Falathrim and Dorathrin ≠ Doriathrim

  • Primitive Quendian (language of the Elves in Cuiviénen)
    • Avarin
      • Various Avarin languages (some later merged with Nandorin)
    • Common Eldarin (the early language of all the Eldar)
      • Quenya (the language of the Noldor and the Vanyar)
        • Quenya Valarin (also Quendya) (daily tongue of the Vanyar: closest to archaic Quenya)
        • Quenya Noldorin Classic
          • Exilic Quenya the "Elven Latin" of Middle-earth
      • Common Lindarin (the early language of all the Lindar)

And should be included somewhere Doriathrin and Falathrin, as early languages.

--Elistir 10:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:ME-project parameters

I'm wondering if it would help to add some more parameters to Template:ME-project to distinguish between page types? Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment for what I am proposing. Another thought is that it might be helpful to clearly distinguish the Middle-earth stuff from the non-Middle-earth stuff. There is a fair amount of cross-over, but there are clearly articles that are purely Middle-earth, and some which are nothing to do with Middle-earth, but are still related to Tolkien. ie. Have "Middle-earth" and "Tolkien" parameters in the template? Would this work, or is the current set-up sufficient? Carcharoth 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with making a distinction between different page types, but I'm rather unsure about the necessity of having "Middle-earth" and "Tolkien" parameters. I'm sure if the reader reads the subject of the article, they will (or at least they should) know. —Mirlen 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is all aimed at editors, not readers, cos its on the talk page. But your point applies to editors as well. They should also know! :-) Any idea how to do the coding in the template to get the page types appearing there? The other thing is to get the template wording to change to "article or page", rather than just "article". It might be simpler to leave things the way they are! Carcharoth 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea, though tweaking with the template I've gained knowledge, but far cry from knowing how to work the coding in the template. It was Irongoygle who added the assessment code so you're going to have to ask him about implementing the codes. —Mirlen 01:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment (importance)

I've been busy assessing some of the articles for their relative importance. Think of this as which articles we should work on as a priority, and have completed if Wikipedia was going to be distributed on CD or printed, and as which articles you would expect to see in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Please have a look at Category:Top-importance_Tolkien_articles, Category:High-importance_Tolkien_articles, Category:Mid-importance_Tolkien_articles and see if you agree or disagree with my assessments. I've not begun populating the "Low importance" category, as some of those need merging and sorting out. To change any assessment, go to the talk page and edit the ME-project template importance parameter. eg. {{ME-project|importance=top}} -> {{ME-project|importance=high}} to change from top to high importance. Carcharoth 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly encourage to have discussions over at the Me:A's talk page about disagreements concernign assessments or on the talk page of an article itself. I'm also going to remove most of the articles that are listed up in the WP:1.0 list that we want to be distributed on CD, partly because it wasn't decided as a consensus and partly because I feel like we need to place more importance on real-world Tolkien-related articles i.e. The Silmarillion. —Mirlen 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I thought they automatically excluded unassessed articles. The only way to remove stuff from that list is to remove the Template:ME-project from the talk page of that article. Another way is to put them as class=stub, or class=start, or class=NA. That way they definitely won't get on the CD. This way we can still keep track of the articles while deciding whether to bin them or merge them or whatever. Carcharoth 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if they automatically exclude unassessed articles, especially if there up on the list, which is located here. But definately labeling them as start or stub would remove them off the list.
So here are topics that I feel like should get in to WP:1.0:
Real world
  • J. R. R. Tolkien
  • Christopher Tolkien (?)
  • The Lord of the Rings
  • The Silmarillion
  • The Hobbit
  • The History of Middle-earth (?)
  • Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings
    • The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
In-universe
  • All the characters listed in the LotR template:
    • Bilbo
    • The entire Fellowship (Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, Gimli)
    • Sauron, Saruman, Wormtongue, Witch-king
    • Arwen (even though she plays a very little role in the books, she's quite significant in the films), Elrond, Galadriel
    • Théoden, Éomer, Éowyn
    • Faramir, Denethor
    • Gollum
    • Treebeard
    • Tom Bombadil
  • Prominent characters in The Silmarillion not mentioned above:
    • Valar
      • Manwë, Melkor (Morgoth), Varda (?), Mandos, Ulmo, Aulë, Yavanna, Tulkas (?)
    • Finwë, Fëanor, Fingolfin, Finarfin (?)
    • Sons of Fëanor, Celebrimbor
      • Maedhros, Maglor, Celegorm, Curufin
    • Fingon, Turgon, Idril, Maeglin
    • Finrod, Gil-galad
    • Beren, Lúthien, Thingol, Melian (?), Elwing, Eärendil
    • Túrin, Nienor, Tuor
    • Ar-Pharazôn (?)
  • Events:
    • Great Journey of the Elves
    • First Kinslaying
    • Wars of Beleriand (and all its major battles)
    • War of the Elves and Sauron
    • Sinking of Númenor
    • War of the Ring (and all its major battles)
  • Places (we'll start with the realms first):
    • Aman (Valinor, Tirion, Alqualondë)
    • Middle-earth
    • Khazad-dûm/Moria, Belegost (?), Erebor
    • Angband, Mordor, Isengard
    • Beleriand (we'll expand on different realms later), Ossiriand/Lindon, Eregion, Lothlórien, Rivendell, Mirkwood (?)
    • Fangorn Forest
    • Gondor, Rohan, Númenor, Harad, Ithilien (?)
    • The Shire, Bree (?)
  • Languages
    • Quenya, Sindarin
    • Westron (?)
  • Other
    • Races of Arda (Ainur, Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, Ents (?), Orcs (?))
      • Lists of people of that species
    • Important objects that played a role in history
      • List of Middle-earth objects — the One Ring, Nine Rings, Three Rings, Silmarils, Narsil/Anduril (?), Palantirs (?), Mirror of Galadriel (?), Red Book of Westmarch, Elfstone, Ring of Barahir (?)
What does everyone else think? Anything they want to add or omit? We should probably shorten this list for WP:1.0 though. I don't think we could get all the articles above in high quality some time soon. —Mirlen 01:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice list. I agree with most of your assessments here, though I haven't had time to compare them to my list yet. I've just finished going through all the Tolkien/ME articles (browsing through the categories), assigning importance ratings to all the articles I think are "top" and "high", and most of the "mid" ones. The rest are generally either "mid" or "low". I've ended up with (at the time of writing) 21 Top-importance_Tolkien_articles, 104 High-importance_Tolkien_articles, 113 Mid-importance_Tolkien_articles, and about 1300 in Unknown-importance Tolkien articles. I've included a lot more book articles. What do people feel about that?
About the CD. The list you pointed to here is only 2 articles. I thought you were referring to the long list starting here. Maybe someone should contact them again, and see what is happening? Carcharoth 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the long list is just a compilation of articles sorted by quality, none of those articles on the list are guaranteed of being in WP:1.0 unless they are in the list I linked to earlier.
Carcharoth, I would love to see your list! I just added three more categories (languages, races, objects) on my list that I realized we should put. I also added in Christopher Tolkien as a way of gratitude. Most children of [famous] authors don't go through the trouble CT did, but we know so little about his life, that I wonder if we could even expand his article on that at all.
So here's the plan I have in mind: After we compare out lists and discuss, we'll then begin to prioritize which articles we need to get into top shape first, and then we'll resort the articles by importance according to the priority to get those articles in WP:1.0. Sounds good? —Mirlen 12:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hang on. I think you are proposing to manually write out a list. The categories I linked to above are best populated by adding "top", "high", "mid", or "low" parameters to the ME-project template on the talk page of the project. I've been doing that instead of writing out a list, but anyone can change these assessments if they disagree. One advantage of using these parameters and categories to keep track of everything is that a bot runs daily and updates the statistics page here. The same bot also updates the list here. You said you would love to see my list. Well, that page is my list! It will change as more people join in and start assessing articles for quality and importance, and changing my assessments, but I can link to a permanent version here. But I do see the advantages of also manually writing out a list to discuss in more detail. For that purpose, I'll create a subpage of the Assessment subpage, and copy your list there. I will also put my list there (the articles I have classed as "top" and "high" importance), and we can then merge them, and others can add articles they think should be included, and we can discuss on the talk page over there. Does that sound good? Carcharoth 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've made a start here. Please feel free to reorganise the page so we can see where the differences are in our lists. I'll try and change mine so it is sorted like your list, but that will take time. We should probably move discussion there, and leave a prominent link here. Carcharoth 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Films - Behind the scenes images

Thus far, it only appears we have an animatic of Sauron for illustration of what went on during production of the trilogy. I request respectfully off anyone on WP:ME to upload any of the following, possibly from the DVDs or elsewhere:

  • John Howe analyzing Gondorian armour.
  • A comparison of Alan Lee's Minas Tirith painting and the finished film.
  • Andy Serkis wearing his "gimpsuit".
  • A diagram of the streamlining of the story from the novel and the three films, in terms of the three volumes and parts being put into different films, as well as what went out.
  • Peter Jackson reading the book.
  • Side-by-side photo of Hobbit's first and last day on Principal Photography: hiding under Nazgul and reaction of being bowed to at Minas Tirith.
  • Dom Monaghan and Billy Boyd on Treebeard puppet.
  • Scale doubles.
  • Pre-viz shot of Minas Tirith battle.
  • Early Gollum design.
  • Comparison of old and finished Witch-king.

I'll request some more if anyone uploads any. Thanks.Wiki-newbie 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Those would all be copyrighted and only allowable under fair use, if at all. You would have to read Wikipedia:Fair use and provide justification when you upload the images. If you can find publicity photos on the film or NewLine websites, you might be able to justify fair-use. Remember though that we shouldn't excessively use fair use images. It might seem like these images would be perfect for illustrating articles, but if we can't use them, we can't use them, and we should concentrate on writing about those topics. Carcharoth 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

True, I just request people upload some of them due to my own limited technical expertise. I can write the Fair Use rationailes. Wiki-newbie 20:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't, and don't want to, get "stuff off the DVDs", but if you point me to a website with suitable pictures, I might consider uploading some pictures if you tell me which ones you want. I can also explain the process, if that will help. I'm guessing though that you can do website stuff, and it is the DVD stuff you can't do. Well, I can't do that either. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Nice work on the articles you've been working on, by the way. Carcharoth 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Per Carcharoth, especially with the work with the efforts made towards turning The Lord of the Rings film trilogy as GA. —Mirlen 04:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be good if you sent me a message Carcharoth about how to upload images from sites. But in the meantime, this image would be very cool for the trilogy article on the Screenplays section: [1] Wiki-newbie 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images

I have found some fair use images in Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images. As you may know, images licensed under fair use can only be used in the article namespace (Fair use criteria #9). I will replace these images with wikilinks if nobody does that in the near future. Just thought you needed to be informed. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Lots of the fair use images are already wiki-links, and there is a note at the top telling people not to put fair use images in galleries. Guess a few must have been missed. Carcharoth 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ehem, that includes user pages :-) -- ReyBrujo 00:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this better? :-) Carcharoth 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Boundaries of project - old discussions

Found an old discussion at Talk:Elros. Some interesting views on how to approach articles and where to draw the line on what to include, and how to include it. Carcharoth 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Found another old discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Middle-earth_items. We probably want to update this while not straying too far from what was decided then. Carcharoth 11:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. We only appear in the first two directories. Not sure why link to those other directories were provided. Strange. Anyway, someone should update our entires there. I'll try and do it tomorrow, unless someone gets there first. Carcharoth 01:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I regret to say that, with about 1000 projects out there, I made a copy of one single message to send out to everyone. You are free to make any changes you wish to, but you might just want to tell me what they are. The internal formatting for the directory is kind of complicated, and it's really easy to make mistakes. I really don't want to tell you the number of mistakes I've already made and corrected on it myself, but I think I've more or less got the hang of it now. B2T2 16:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question From the Help Desk

We just had a question on the help desk about Oss&euml, which redirects to Ossë. The question was is it really necessary? There is nothing in "what links here". It was created in 2004. Any need of it at all? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked that question, didn't I? I suppose I could answer it and you could post an answer at the help desk for me to read... :-) I was really asking about whether the "&euml" bit was needed. The redirect Osse would be more appropriate, but hasn't been created yet is a disambiguation page. I guess my point is that no-one is going to type "Oss&euml", so I might put it up for deletion. Carcharoth 01:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I brought it here because I thought that this would be the group of people that knew whether or not it was needed. It's almost speediable per R3, implausable typo. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll wait a day or two to see if anyone disagrees, unless someone speedies it before me. Carcharoth 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Back at the help desk, someone else points out that there is no harm leaving it there. It's cheap and doesn't do any harm. I'll leave it alone then. Carcharoth 09:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bilbo stuff

Though others might be interested in this and in particular what happened to Bilbo... :-) Carcharoth 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

We need to reach a consensus (or if there has been one, an updated consensus) on the general term use of Middle-earth. The term, Middle-earth, has been used as a blanket term (more for easy-of-use than specific accuracy from what I can tell) to cover the Tolkien's fictional universe. However, the phrase used in that context is misleading and oversimplifies the truth of his legendarium.

Breakdown of geography of Tolkien's legendarium:

It seems like a minor technicality, but I've brought this to attention because the general audience (along with A) people who have only read LotR and TH, and B) people who've only watched Peter Jackson's films) now believe Middle-earth as the one place where every single event played in the history of Arda takes place and this has created confusion beyond mere knowledge and into genereal categorization and naming of articles and templates.

Blanket phrases Specific phrases
...fictional universe of Middle-earth... ...fictional universe of Eä...
...fictional world of Middle-earth... ...fictional world of Arda...
...fictional world/universe of Middle-earth... ...fictional continent of Middle-earth...
...fictional world/universe of Middle-earth ...fictional continent of Aman...

Is it more comfortable to refer Middle-earth to everything related to Tolkien's legendarium? Yes. Is it accurate? No, and that usage is admittedly a little misleading, especially to the general audience, since Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia. Since we're to assume that the reader does not knowing anything, we should be more specific in what we mean by universe, world, realms, continents, and so on. Maintaining a consistent use of Middle-earth as a blanket term for everything related to Tolkien's works contradicts the information written in the articles (e.g. Eä, Arda, Aman, etc.). Hence, this contradiction develops (or has developed, rather) into an inconsistency in accuracy and facts. —Mirlen 03:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner. The table above summarises things perfectly, and would be a valuable addition to the standards page. The bit about identifying Ea/Arda/ME/Aman etc with areas of our Earth is more complex, and would need a whole article to do it justice. Best not to go beyond saying that some areas can be identified with some areas of our universe. In terms of names for categories and articles, I would say use the specific phrases, but not to worry about the names of templates (renaming widely-used ones can be a nightmare). I would then say that our terminology in articles should use the specific terms, but that we should have a standard footnote to add to quotes of usages of ME as a blanket term (nice article to link to!). This would include Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien's own usages of ME as a blanket term, as well as others using it in the same sense. Carcharoth 05:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for not replying sooner as well. Hmm, I pointed out the (mis)use of "Middle-earth" as a "fictional universe" some time ago... how about using "In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium" first, then using applicable terms? The Númenoreans sure don't belong in "the fictional world/universe of Middle-earth"... Uthanc 06:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well yes and no. Numenoreans did had numerous colonies in Middle-earth and came back to ME later fleeing the downfall...as you well know it, so it would not be so wrong to say they belong in "the fictional world/universe of Middle-earth". ;:) --Factanista 12:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, but you know what I mean... "Middle-earth" won't do in all instances. Uthanc 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern with this idea is that it goes against how Tolkien and his son Christopher referred to the legendarium (as noted by Carcaroth above). Indeed, the History of Middle-Earth series would quite contradict this usage if merely by the series' title. Do we really need to do this, when the author himself did not? (Perhaps I am misunderstanding the intent above?) - jc37 07:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You have my support. In fact I must say this is identical with how I viewed it anyway so obviously I can only support this. I also however agree with Carcharoth, we need links to explain the problem to those who are not so familiar with whole J.R.R's legendarium.--Factanista 12:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in two minds on this. I tend to refer to the entire setting as Middle-earth, as it is a convenient and well-known term for it. Most people won't know about Arda or Eä. However when giving specifics inside the articles of course use the right terms. Uthanc's idea is a good one in my opinion. Use either In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium… or In J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional Middle-earth setting…. For anything taking place outside of Endor such as Valinor or Númenor, give information on its position relative to Middle-earth in the article itself. -- Jordi·✆ 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

At least the Fëanor and Maedhros articles already have "In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium". In agreement with Carcharoth with explaining with and without footnotes when "Middle-earth" is used in authorial/editorial quotes as a blanket term. People might get confused by "legendarium", however. To quote User:Csernica, we can either be correct, or we can be understood. Of course, they can click the link, but I think it's fairly obvious what legendarium means... How about "mythology"? The appropriateness of "mythology" was discussed here. I'm fine with "legendarium". Uthanc

I think "legendarium" is suitable, because someone looking at that could assume what it ment, and if they can't they can just click on a link to it. That way if it is dealing with Middle-earth directly (such as the stories and characters in LOTR) the lead sentence can say "In Tolkien's legendarium of Middle-earth..." (or "concerning Middle-earth") and if not dealing directly with ME, "In Tolkien's legendarium..." like Maedhros' article. --Ted87 16:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to get back to the ME/Ea/Arda/Aman issue...

  • Carcharoth – I 100% agree with what you have said.
  • jc37 – you have a valid point; however, I saw the usage of Middle-earth more as a marketing tool than for accuracy. The Return of the King wasn't a title Tolkien preferred, he disliked the title and his original title for the third volume was to be The War of the Ring. It was his publishers who changed it to RotK because they thought it would prove to give more profit. By which title of the HoME series would attract customers more, by the current title, The History of Middle-earth, or by the more accurate title, The History of Eä/Arda? I think it's a given that the current title would attract more readers. Not that I assume to know whether or CT approved of the title, my point was merely that we don't know if he personally approved that usage in the series or not. —Mirlen 22:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    The trouble here is: whether or not the publisher chose the reference, or either Tolkien, it's the "most commonly used name" (See WP:NC). In general, these are "Middle-Earth works".
    An observation: This seems to be a discussion arguing "in" vs "of". These are lands "of" Middle-Earth, even if they may not be lands "in" Middle-Earth.
    Anyway, can you more fully explain your table and it's intended use? - jc37 10:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And now for the proposal that seems to be in general approval...

  • Uthanc/Jor/Ted87 – I like this plan. For things related to Middle-earth, the lead sentence can start off with "In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium concerning Middle-earth", or if the subject has to do with more than just Middle-earth, then we should just cut it to "In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium" and later mention in the introduction about the location the subejct of the article is tied with. —Mirlen 22:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we put this on the Standards page now? Uthanc 03:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I would've waited for more comments, but it seems that there is a majority who are willing for the plan, so I guess it's alright.
But before anyone does so, I just need some things to be cleared up. Are we leaving the "J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium" alone and then using applicable terms of Ea, Arda, Aman, and Middle-earth, or are we having Middle-earth articles start off with the lead sentence "In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium concerning Middle-earth" and leave off with the regular lead sentence for the rest? I prefer the former plan, simply because I don't see the urgency in placing Middle-earth with the lead sentence and prefer to be consistent when starting off with a standardised phrase. —Mirlen 03:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine with the former plan myself for the same reasons. I may have been too hasty. ;) I guess we should wait a day or two, if you haven't added it already. Uthanc 04:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
To be ultra nit-picky... 'Arda' might more accurately be called the 'earth system' than 'Earth'. It is the Earth plus everything which orbits it... in the mythology that'd include the sun, the moon, and the stars. The Earth alone is 'Ambar'. I think we definitely need to differentiate these various terms, but as others have said 'Middle-earth' is a de-facto general term for ALL of them. I think within Wikipedia we should always use the specific terms and just explain the 'Middle-earth dichotomy' on the appropriate page(s). The only problem I have with 'Tolkien's legendarium' is that some of his stories didn't tie in to Middle-earth, but could still be called part of his 'legendarium'. Specific terms would have to vary by article and be subject to confusion and mis-use. As would any 'generic' intro using one of the 'geographic' terms above. Even 'the fictional universe of Ea' is going to be incorrect when referring to the Timeless Halls of Iluvatar. We might adopt 'Middle-earth legendarium' as a specific term (with an article) which we define and use to refer to stories regarding the whole of Ea plus the Timeless Halls outside of Ea. Overall I think that's probably the best option... it leaves in the 'Middle-earth' which is the commonly understood term, but pairs it with legendarium and can then be linked to explain exactly what this means. --CBD 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
And I'm reminded again of the need for an article outlining what exactly the phrase Tolkien's legendarium means. Just linking to legendarium is embarassing at the moment. Carcharoth 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Per Carcharoth. I always thought legendarium included all the legends and myths that occured within a mythology/fictional history. It is said that Tolkien himself used the phrase to refer to his works (to quote from the article: "J. R. R. Tolkien also used the term to describe the totality of his fictional world of Middle-earth and the Undying Lands (collectively named Arda)") — does anyone have an instance in which the Professor uses the exact phrase term? —Mirlen 16:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll try and look something up. I also discovered Tolkien's Legendarium, which should have a lowercase 'l'. Also, there is a book called "Tolkien's Legendarium", so that can go there, with a hatnote pointing to the 'legendarium' article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carcharoth (talk • contribs)
Thanks Carcharoth. :) So do we all agree with the definition given on Tolkien's legendarium? If we do (with help from JRRT's text), we can decide on the correct terminology that should be used. —Mirlen 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that article is only a stub at the moment. Hopefully someone will get around to expanding it. I might or might not have time. Carcharoth 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point of inaccuracy

As Mirlen writes in a discussion about whether Template_talk:Middle-earth belongs in Category:Novel series navigational boxes, we sometimes have to choose between "verified truth or common perceptions that can be slightly misleading" - as also evident from the above. Another popular misconception is that Hobbits are a separate race. Actually Tolkien writes that they are a "variety" or "separate branch" (different species?) of the race of Men; this is stated in the article, along with the fact that characters, including the Hobbits themselves, think of them as a separate race (Men and Hobbits are as different as apples and oranges, according to Bilbo). See - Were Hobbits a sub-group of Humans? from The Tolkien Meta-FAQ

So should we remove Category:Middle-earth races from the article? Should we replace it with Category: Middle-earth Men? Category: Middle-earth Hobbits already exists and includes the article. If we do so, explanatory notes will have to be written on the category pages. Admittedly, this can be only confirmed in Letters and the guide for translators; the statement that "Hobbits are relatives of ours, closer than are Elves and Dwarves" in the prologue to LOTR is too vague. Uthanc 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Uthanc 09:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Greek mythology

Greek mythology is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Why put this notice here? Uthanc 07:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Gondolin was Troy, didn't you know! :-) (if you read the discussion, it seems the above page was linked from here at some point, specifically here). Carcharoth 08:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK Gondolin story was inspired by Troy but it did not meant to "represent Troy" literally, Tolkien hated metaphor like that. --Factanista 12:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't suggesting it was an allegory (the thing JRRT detested), but merely pointing out that others (not me) have made the comparisons. JRRT did use metaphors and similies extensively though, as in "a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle" (Akallabeth) or "the shadow around it spread out like two vast wings" (LotR). Carcharoth 13:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Understood. What I was saying (more like reaffirming) is that to state "Gondolin IS Troy" was just wrong. I know that JRRT was influenced and inspired by fall of Troy (at least C.Tolkien suggested it...as far as I can remember) but he, as you say yourself, detested allegory (or metaphor) in such a sense that one thing is representing the other...metaphorically, like f.e. Orcs actaully being Nazis, etc. Of course that he like all writers used meaphors in that sense present in the quoted passages. Bah...hope you understand what I am trying to say here...I am a bit foggy today...--Factanista 17:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

New images

At least the Fëanor and Morgoth articles have images of the characters, but they're fan art, and their artists don't ring a bell, unlike John Howe, Alan Lee, Ted Nasmith (probably the most well-known Tolkien artists), the Brothers Hildebrandt, Jenny Dolfen, and Anke Eißmann (probably the two most famous fan-artists, and they sell prints). If they can stay at all, they may need to be properly tagged and re-uploaded. We could use more images, preferably by well-known artists, and even by Tolkien himself.

Agreed. Those fan arts should be deleted — the only reason why Jenny Dolfen's and Anke Eißmann's arts are allowed is because in reality, both of them are professional artists and not only because they are allowed to sell prints related to Tolkien's legendarium, but also because both of them have been commisioned to create art for many recognized Tolkien organizations throughout. It'd be wonderful if we could upload some art by Tolkien. Anyone have any? —Mirlen 22:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Art by Tolkien. Interesting. The Tolkien Estate would hold the copyright. Probably the closest you could get to it would be a fair-use rationale in an article about Tolkien's art, or the cover of one of the books on Tolkien's art, used to illustrate an article on the book, again fair use. Other than that, an external link would be the next best thing, though we mustn't link to websites that don't have permission for the pictures. Carcharoth 22:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Since some of that art was used for postal stamps, it might be feasible to provide links to sites depicting those stamps. E.g. here. I'd assume that the Royal Mail had permission to use the pictures. I consider these very useful since they show that a lot of things very depicted by Tolkien far less over-the-top as by other fantasy artists such as, for example, Howe. --OliverH 22:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea. In fact, I think it might even be OK to put that picture of the stamps on the J. R. R. Tolkien article, with a fair-use rationale of illustrating the impact he has had on wider culture. ie. enough to get stamps issued. There are places around here to check image use (which is a complex business). Could someone ask about this there? Somewhere like Wikipedia:Images maybe? Carcharoth 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Fair_use_of_stamps_images instead. Carcharoth 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I once saw a scan of a page from J. R. R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator online, showing a drawing of Sauron! Tolkien depicted him as a guy with literally black skin (or was it armor?) and red eyes, stretching his arm out. However, uploading to and linking to scans of pages isn't allowed here, I think. Anyway, I can't find the site again (sigh). Uthanc 03:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:The Lord of the Rings music needs renaming/changing

Category:The Lord of the Rings music is used for music for the Jackson films. It's a subcategory of Category: Middle-earth music, which contains all other Tolkien-related music, and of Category:Film soundtracks and Category:Film scores. I think the category should contain film soundtracks from the other films. Also, judging by the title Donald Swann's The Road Goes Ever On song cycle should be here, though its not film-related. It should be renamed Category:The Lord of the Rings film music (any other wording? Category:Music of The Lord of the Rings films?) for clarity, adaptation-neutrality and to keep it within its parent categories. What do you say? Check out my proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 4. Uthanc 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category changed. Uthanc 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Date for your diaries - 15 November!!

J. R. R. Tolkien is due to go on the Main Page on 15 November. The Lord of the Rings set a new record for number of edits while featured, so we should aim to have the Tolkien article looking nice, and be ready for the exposure this article will get. Also, if there are any changes needed to the introduction that will appear on the front page (see here), we should agree on them and get an admin to change the text. I have two minor changes to suggest: (1) change the first reference to Oxford to say "Oxford University"; (2) ensure the C. S. Lewis bit doesn't break across lines. Carcharoth 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal-watching, eh? I wasn't even online on Oct. 5, tsk tsk. Uthanc 06:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made those changes. Can undo if there is dispute and/or make other updates. --CBD 13:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(Irritating) redirects-to-fix list

I commend Kaobear for wiping out all ""Lord Of the Rings" redirects in articles and article talk pages (no need for personal pages). But there's still a lot to be done. Does anyone know a automated bot or something that can fix these?

List more here. Uthanc 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings fixing (to The Lord of the Rings), and indeed the Lord Of The Rings fixing needs to be careful to distinguish what the link should be pointing at. See The Lord of the Rings (disambiguation) for a list of possibilities. Fixing dabs can be done by AWB, but please take care to verify that the links are pointing at the film, book, radio, board game, musical or whatever, and not just to the book. Also, don't forget to italicise where appropriate. And when changing J.R.R. Tolkien to J. R. R. Tolkien, please put in non-breaking spaces, as in [[J. R. R. Tolkien|J. R. R. Tolkien]] (use edit to see the correct formatting for the nbsp bits) - though this is maybe being a bit pedantic. For more redirects, which hopefully can be organised into a subcategory of spelling and typographic mistakes, see Category:Middle-earth redirects. Carcharoth 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Edited your comment to show the nbsps. To show an entity, just replace the ampersand & with its own entity, &. -- Jordi·✆ 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

David Arkenstone album added

I have added Music Inspired by Middle Earth, an album by David Arkenstone, to Category:Middle-earth music. I have owned this album for years. When I used to play EverQuest I would run this album as soundtrack and turn off the in-game music. :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 12:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is "Arkenstone" his real name?! I wonder what it means. Tolkien had an Arkenstone too... ;) And what's with the underscoring? Thanks. Uthanc 12:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
heh, no, the underscoring should not have been there, it was a cut and paste. :) better? As far as I know, Arkenstone is his real name, or as real as any performers name is. He has several albums. check it out. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 21:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive6&oldid=1252038003"