Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shortcut
Archive
Archives

Past discussions and issuses can be located by clicking on the archive links.

Front page · Main discussion · Standards · Things to do · Assessment · Templates
Images · Watchlist (Recent changes)


Roll call

Please sign your name below and on the members page. Comments are optional.

Deletion, merging, creation of Tolkien-related Wikipedia content.

Deletion

Link to articles, images, categories, etc. under Articles for deletion/Proposed deletion, or else already deleted.

Newly created/found

Link to articles, etc. newly created/found.

To read about Sam's pony 'Bill' click here.
To read Tolkien's Bibliography click here

Merging/redirecting

Link to articles, etc. for merging/already merged/redirecting/already redirected.
See below for discussion of merging of articles of unclear notability. Uthanc (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Redirected Fellowship of the Ring (characters) to the volume. (Not in the long list below). Uthanc (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposing merger of Fell beast into Nazgûl (see Talk:Nazgûl#Merge) -Thibbs (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues

Other specific issues regarding Tolkien-related Wikipedia content.

Hi, I see a lot of individual articles related to middle-earth in wiki, but not linked to this middle-earth project. As I am new to wiki, I am still learning ways to sort these articles categorically. But for now, I have provided some redirection links in the Newly Created/Found section of this page, to some related articles that I found. It would be of great help if anyone could include me in their tasks, thereby helping me to learn more about writing/editing articles and thus contribute more. Thank you.

Elfpal (talk) 18:46, 27 April, 2009

Mergers / articles of unclear notability

Hello,

about 9 months ago, I posted a notice here regarding ~130 project-related articles that are flagged for unclear notability (mostly, articles about individual fictional characters or places in middle-earth). Per Carcaroth's response at that time, it seemed that merger activities were ongoing. In the meantime, the articles - most of them flagged in October 2007 - have reached the end of the notability backlog; there are approximately 100 left. Is the merger process still ongoing?

I'm wondering what to do with those 100 articles. While there has been a lot of discussion about fiction-related topics in the meantime, it seems to have emerged as a rough consensus that articles about fictional characters/places without evidence of notability (independent of the fictional work itself) should be redirected to list entries or articles of larger scope. (At least, that's what I've been told each time when I nominated similar articles on WP:PROD.) Does anyone object to that for the articles at hand? --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't catch this at first. There will be merging ASAP (again), as much as possible. One problem is that those of us who (used to) post here regularly couldn't agree on where to merge stuff into. But I'd prefer the merging was left to the project as much as possible. Sorry for (my personal) lull... Uthanc (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to help out when I get time as well. Merging is something I can get a fair amount done when I get going - it's just actually getting started that is the problem. I think I stopped around the rulers of Gondor last time. I can carry on doing people, if others want to do places? Does that sound like a plan? Carcharoth (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
How to merge: WP:MERGE
Real progress on this probably won't happen until we have some clearer idea where these ought to be merged. I would like to avoid really long list articles (say, Places in Middle-earth). Some of the existing list articles are awkward to edit because too much content appears in various subheads (see, e.g., List of Middle-earth weapons and armour). An alphabetic scheme helps, as in List of rivers of Beleriand; but that list is already getting long, and the alphabetic heads make it a bit hard to read. Should that list really be merged into a longer list? Should we start here a list of suggested homes for the list of merge targets? Should we simply scratch some of this content? Do people have suggestions for how to make lists easy to read and easy to edit? Elphion (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The places make my head spin... merging people should be easier. I suggest we follow the "list of Kings of Rohan" model for the Stewards of Gondor, in other words a list within the article. User:CBDunkerson made a list of Middle-earth Men but that got deleted. I think it should be recreated to list people who don't fit elsewhere. Non-royal chracters could go in a list in their respective "culture article", meaning Háma is merged into Rohirrim. But then I see Rohirrim and Rohan are seperate, as is Harad and Haradrim... Argh. How about we merge the people into their "nation"? Uthanc (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Other things being equal, I think a geographic organization makes the best sense, with articles about regions containing information about specific places and people associated with them. But that brings us right away to the real issue here, namely, how much of the information in the whole collection of articles below should be retained? If we merge several articles about, say, Rhovanion and its people into one, it will be a very long article, and it's not at all clear to me that it would be any easier to use than the current arrangement (although it might be easier to keep the bits in sync). Besides, "Rhovanion" is already tagged below, for some reason, as being Not Notable; so it's not clear that this approach would appease the critics anyway.

The subtext behind this push to merge seems to be that there's too much information about Middle-earth in Wikipedia, and that most of it is Not Notable. I think that's what needs to be addressed first, both so that we have a guide for ourselves about where to draw the line (WP:NOTE is not quite enough direction here), and so we have something to mollify the exclusionists with. (Note: I am carefully not staking a position here! :-) Once we know how much material we ought to keep, it will be easier to decide how to organize it. We need to strike a balance between interminable articles and piecemeal treatment in Not Notable articles. A particular item to keep in mind: where should minutiae about the films go?

Even if we decide to keep everything, the geographical approach still makes sense -- with a group of regional articles of common organization, containing info about Not Notable people and places and links to Notable ones.

Elphion (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that bothered by long articles :-P but would not say no to some trimming. I would not mind certain articles turned into redirects, for instance, or the removal of in-universe dates - as long as the necessary information is still there somewhere. About notability, we just need more sources to justify inclusion - given how old this stuff is there just may be sources for everything (hyperbole, but you get the point). Uthanc (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree that there is too much material on Middle-earth in Wikipedia. I think the key point is demonstrating relevance in the real world; easy to prove for LoTR, Frodo, Elves etc where you will find many reliable sources discussing their impact on RealLifeTM, but probably not for minor locations or characters like Dol Guldur or Fatty Bolger. If real life relevance cannot be demonstrated, I suggest the article has to go. I would also suggest that where there is material that has no real world relevance, but has been worked on long and hard, it could usefully be transwikied to one of the existing Tolkien wikis. 4u1e (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"I suggest the article has to go" ...or just be merged/redirected to somewhere. About transwiki-ing the content, there's Tolkien Gateway and the One Wiki to Rule Them All. The former has official and fan art while the other is on Wikia. But both seem established in their directions. Tolkien Gateway at least seems to have no shortage of articles, but at least some articles from both wikis are partial forks from here. (I'm an inactive member of the first.) Uthanc (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Taking an example I'm slightly familiar with, our Dol Guldur article would probably be an improvement (or at least contains more!) that the ones on those two sites (here and here). Since they're both well-established, it's probably not a straightforward cut and paste job, but it would at least be a home for material that is perhaps not well suited to Wikipedia but is well written and referenced. Both sites seem to be in-universe, which much of our content tends towards. 4u1e (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts: Deletion should be the last resort as redlinks are ugly. Merge and redirect stuff when possible. Snip when needed. I think we can lose the in-universe dates, just making sure the sequence of events are clear. Fatty Bolger at least can be merged into the list of hobbits. Dol Guldur is a "major minor place" in my opinion (I may be wrong), and I wouldn't have written that much. Perhaps we scrap the "minor ____" designation and just have a list for the applicable subjects? Or condensation? Dang... About sources for relevance, the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia seems useful. Part of it is accessible on Google Books. Uthanc (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If we're doing lists of characters, then I agree that Fredegar should appear there only. Looking at Dol Guldur as an example again, although it's very familiar to all of us, it is mentioned only rarely, and only around the edges of the main stories. I don't think we ever get a first hand account of it, in any of the texts. To me, proving real life relevance would mean something like:
  • Published discussion of the
-creative process behind the idea (not aware that Tolkien wrote anything about where the idea of DG came from)
-literary function of the site (I don't see it serves any very important function, so I doubt this exists, but it might)
-impact of the site on other writing (again, I doubt this has happened...).
  • Use of the idea in other media - for example Dol Guldur does appear in several video and role playing games and there is no doubt a Swedish extreme-death-thrash-jazz-metal band named after it. :) It's not in the movies, but might conceivably appear in the Hobbit films.
I would explicitly exclude use of in-universe encyclopedias or gazeteers as references - because they usually attempt to be comprehensive (so they're not discriminating), and they usually add no content to what Tolkien wrote; they don't really prove anything other than Tolkien is popular and his material lends itself to in-universe encyclopedic treatment.
Looking at that as an example, I would suggest that DG rates no more than a brief mention in a list of locations, on the basis that it does have some slight usage outside the books. Of course, it's entirely possible that there are reams of scholarly debate in the JRR Tolkien Encyclopedia, or in the archives of the various Tolkien societies, in which case a more substantial standalone article would be justified. I'm not going to get dogmatic about any of this, though. :) 4u1e (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

List

Cities
Places and Realms
Hills, Mountains, and Passes
Rivers and Bays
People and Houses
Writings
Miscellaneous
Copied here for reference... Uthanc (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorted to help merging. – Psyche825 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Past/present tense

See previous archives for relevant stuff

I don't really care anymore. Might as well follow present. :-P Uthanc (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 

Front page · Main discussion · Standards · Things to do · Assessment · Templates
Images · Watchlist (Recent changes)

Rath Dinen

I've merged this into Minas Tirith and redirected. I say merged, but in my opinion there was very little in the Rath Dinen article that was needed. All that now appears is a brief mention of what and where it was, and Denethor's death there. I'm probably at the extreme end of views on how much material we should have on locations like that, so I wanted to notify project members here so that they can resurrect anything they think necessary from the history of the article. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Grond disambiguation

Hey all. I would like to create an article for the GROND Gamma-Ray Burst Optical/Near-Infrared Detector, an instrument in La Silla, Chile. It's been at the center of important research in astrophysics, as has the project's leader, Jochen Greiner of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany.

Among his team's accomplishments in the past months, two have made the popular news: The discovery of the most-distant gamma ray burst and the most-intense gamma-ray burst. (NASA press release 1, NASA press release 2).

Grond is currently just a redirect, and it appears from the talk page that there was some talk of deleting the article. However, Greiner apparently acknowledges the Tolkien reference with a link to this wikipedia article (his page). So I wanted to just disambiguate, but it appears that many articles link there (link).

I just wanted to check with your project before proceeding. demonburrito (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy for the GROND article to go, with perhaps an other uses link to the middle earth article.. I will go an have a look what pages link directly to Grond and change them. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Coolness. Thanks! demonburrito (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think Grond should be a disambiguation page linking to both items. Grond (Middle-earth) would redirect to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour#Grond. Uthanc (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think a disambiguation page for one list item of another article would be excessive. My inclination would be to leave it as a hatnote disambiguation. I think my position is backed up by this. demonburrito (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I also think Grond should be a disambiguation page. Demonburrito cites Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_or_disambiguation_links.3F, which states that if neither of two targets is the main article, then a DAB page is appropriate. In this case, the Gamma-ray observatory article does not have the heading "Grond", so it is not immediately obvious why you ended up there, and even the DAB link there has the word "Grond" only buried in the URL. The reference note on the DAB link makes this even more convoluted. A DAB page would make this much less confusing for the user. Elphion (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Besides, since GROND's acronym was probably chosen with Tolkien in mind, I think some equal time is in order :-) Elphion (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The guideline I cited states:

If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.

One topic is an article, about an observatory which has recently been part of two breakthroughs in astrophysics and has been all over the popular science media. The other is two paragraphs from a stand-alone list article. Clearly one is the primary topic.
Also, I'm not looking for sympathy or anything, but putting that note in the hatnote was a lot of work (nested ref bug). That I put it there should be evidence that I love all things Tolkien, and that I wanted it to be known that it looks like it is a Tolkien reference.
I arrived at my plan after reviewing the talk page of grond and asking this project what would be the best way forward. There was an apparent consensus that the article didn't need to exist, which would seem to make it a secondary topic.
About your concern about the "buried" Grond in the hatnote, I fixed it.
Please believe me... I am not an enemy of WikiProject ME. However, I think that this would be totally non-controversial outside this project. demonburrito (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I still disagree. No one is accusing you of being unfriendly, and I have no axe to grind. (I myself am an amateur astronomer and think GROND's really cool.) But the redirection is still visually confusing, even with your edit to the DAB link. It would be less of a problem if the observatory article were titled "Grond" or "GROND". I would expect "GROND" to redirect automatically to the Gamma-ray observatory; but "Grond" to a DAB page, given the two very different choices. I don't agree that the observatory is necessarily the main article. (I'd even wager that more users come looking for Tolkien's Grond than for GROND, but that's not really the issue.) Elphion (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First character of an article name is case-insensitive in MediaWiki; "grond" is "Grond." (Apologies if you probably already knew that)
The issue is the guideline, the observatory is clearly the primary topic to me; the secondary topic doesn't even warrant an article, according to the consensus of this very project. I'm pretty sure that I'm right about this, and I think an outsider would agree. Would you object to asking an uninvolved admin? demonburrito (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Err... Update. Just read Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes (this is my first...). I would be okay with a Wikipedia:Third_opinion at first. It's non-binding, of course. demonburrito (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
I have to ask: why are you so dead-set against a DAB page, especially since it's clear that the issue isn't a slam-dunk? It seems like a no-brainer to me: simple, clean, easy for the user to understand what's going on. I also think it's a cleaner way to handle the link from GROND site, rather than the footnote on the DAB link. Elphion (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This was worked out a week ago. You would like to create a disambiguation page with only two topics; one of which is not an article. And I could ask the same question of you: Why are you so dead-set on turning a useful redirect into a disambiguation page? I don't think your arguments are compelling.
So far:
It's visually confusing. It is exactly no more or less confusing than every other disambiguation link on wikipedia.
It doesn't have the heading "Grond." Topics known by acronym redirect to articles with the unabbreviated name. Again, see rest of wikipedia.
I don't agree that the observatory is the main article. As stated above, ME Grond is not an article.
I'm beginning to suspect you two would just like to bring the Grond article back from the dead someday. In any case, yeah, I'm dead set against it, as you say. demonburrito (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A quick point on capitalization: grond is equivalent to Grond, but GROND is a different article. Seeing as the instrument's name is an acronym, rather than the five letter word "Grond", I think it's pretty clear that GROND should redirect to the instrument, but as for Grond I'd prefer a DAB page. Just my two cents. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] In case it got lost above, from the guidelines: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_or_disambiguation_links.3F

If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.

In other words, disambiguation page with only two topics generally bad. Additionally, it's my position that a disambiguation page with one article and one link to two paragraphs in a stand-alone list in a legendarium is worse. Sorry.

As for the caps thing, see cia.

I've said all I can say on this. Again suggest we get a [[Wikipedia:Third_opinion]]. Will check in on this tomorrow. demonburrito (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes; there it is: the L-word. "Legendarium". The "What-I'm-doing-is-more-important-than-what-you're-doing" argument. Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. And I'm sorry it has tempted you into ad hominem argument: I'm not hearing any sentiment here that "Grond" should be revived as a separate article; there's not that much to say about it. The list treatment is perfectly adequate. That doesn't mean it should be ignored as a topic, however, or that people won't be looking for it.
And I am certainly not dead set against a DAB link. I do believe that in this case a DAB page is hands down the cleanest solution. The guideline you cite does not say that DAB pages with only two topics are bad; just that where there is a clear main choice a link is the preferred solution. This case is not clear or we wouldn't have written so much about it. For my part, all I want is that someone typing in "Grond" arrives at a place from which it is clear how to get to Grond. I have never objected in principle to a DAB link ==> as long as the link makes it immediately clear where to go next. The link paragraph that's currently at Gamma Ray etc. is confusing and hard to read, and the footnote is a bad distraction. (Sorry, I know you struggled over implementing it, and I agree that preserving that information somehow is important.) I would suggest that the DAB paragraph say something like:
"Grond" and "GROND" link here. For Grond, the fictional battering ram from Tolkien's universe, see the List of Middle-earth weapons and armour.
I would include #Grond in the link but not in the link text. I'm not sure what to do with the footnote, but it shouldn't appear in the middle of the link paragraph. It would probably work OK at the end.
Elphion (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, using the "L" word may have been inappropriate. I'm sorry. I only have one quibble to point out (but several that I will keep to myself) with your statements. The case seems clear to me, and we've written so much about it because it's on the ME project talk page. I like your project. As you said above, I did a lot of legwork on different talkpages to reach the "note in hatnote" compromise, and worked around a mediawiki bug and the lack of a source to make sure people appreciated the reference.
That said, I'm totally fine with changing the dab link paragraph the way you proposed. Sounds like a good solution. demonburrito (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A class

Does this project do A class reviews, or use the class at all? I notice 2 A class articles, but cannot find the reviews.YobMod 10:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien FAR

I have nominated J. R. R. Tolkien for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle-earth canon: No longer necessary?

I've just added a comment to the Middle-earth canon talk page suggesting that the article has lost its purpose. Comments there are welcome. (I haven't nominated it for deletion, mind you, but I might well support that.) --Steuard (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Saruman's ring

Hi all. Views requested on the matter of WP:SYNTHESIS as it applies to Saruman's ring. See talk:Saruman. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien Licenscing

Page on Tolkien Enterprises recently updated.

With relation to videogames : I don't know exactly wether the changes in licensee from Electronic arts to Warner Bros. includes both films and books, or just one of the two. If anyone can clarify please alter the article or leave a note. Thanks very much.FengRail (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hunt for Gollum

Just a heads-up to the good folks of this wikiproject that I've started a page for The Hunt for Gollum. Anyone who wishes to contribute and/or improve the article is, of course, welcome. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod template warning

During the week I added a propsed deletion template to The Ringbearer's Diary and the article on its author Peter Kjærulff. I note that at least one member of this project has been active there, but from what I can tell from the connected websites for the book and its publishers this book is not a serious piece of Tolkein scholarship but rather advances the author's fringe mystical beliefs. The actual prods are on grounds of being self-published.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:One Ring#Home Made Ring?

Please see Talk:One Ring#Home Made Ring?, to see my question. Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Theonering.net

I declined the speedy deletion on this one because of the massive number of Google hits, but it needs sources establishing notability. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive14&oldid=1232697888"