Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Community

[edit] Roll call: December to mid-January

Sign your name below and comments are optional.

  1. Page needed updating. I can understand why things have slowed down - can't blame Real Life. Also, we're obviously not all in the same countries and time zones so we follow different schedules. I won't take any names off the list. Uthanc 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Update: I'm going to be busy myself for the next weeks. Uthanc 08:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Good call with updating the page. Things have been a bit quiet round here, but I still see activity in the articles on my watchlist. I'm currently watching, reading and (eventually) voting in the ArbCom elections, but hope to get back to doing stuff around here after that. Carcharoth 11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I think "sidetracked" would seem to be the consensus : ) - Maybe we should decide on a collaboration of the month, and dive in. - jc37 14:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. I'm back and have some time on my hands.Barnikel 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. I'll see if I can assess some of the unassessed pages. --Thisisbossi 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. I'm still pretty busy with school, but maybe over Christmas break I can take the time to edit some articles and clean up around the Middle earth articles. --Merond e 10:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Here, but been tied up with admin, template, and featured content stuff for a bit. Have some Tolkien related plans now though. --CBD 22:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Been busy, so I can only do very little at the moment. —Mirlen 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Have exams coming up, I'll check back in 2 weeks. --Ted87 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Pejorative.majeure 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. I just joined, but I've got a little bit of free time for the next couple weeks and should be able to help out. Alataristarion 03:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. I've been trying to help with minor places articles please expand there has to be more then 10 minor places.--Randalllin 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. I am unsure if race basics are completely different in Middle-Earth, but I do know race characteristics. I know much about the basic traits of the races. For one orc shamen use a larger variant of the cave bat to scout and ambush armies. The orc shaman, however, is apart of independent society and exist if there is no higher leadership. The Fellbeast is also a species of wyvern, characteristics including a slightly smaller body and being indiginous to Mordor. You can try to say this is false because you have never heard of it, but I know more about fantasy races than most others. Ask me for anything regarding race culture and I will answer. If I have to do research, I will add citation. Eiyuu Kou 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Just started editing wiki seriously last month, looking to help out here. Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Thanks for the invite. Although I am usually busy, I have contributed to, and do monitor, several of the Tolkien pages on a regular basis. I was very pleased when The Lord of the Rings became a featured article. LotR 14:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Taking a break from the Wikipedia. I will be back at some later point probably. Thanks for the coöperation. -- Jordi·✆ 09:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. I am still here, and touching my projects as I find time. Happy new year to all. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 13:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Joining in, for a while, anyway. Will probably focus on the modern scholars with no articles. Just did Douglas A. Anderson. - PKM 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. I'm back and ready to help. Kyriakos 11:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. I seem to be a de facto member anyway, helping out with various Tolkien-related pages. Just created Roads of Middle-earth. Expansion welcomed and requested. --Fang Aili talk 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Linus M. I'll help whenever I have time.
  22. Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name, but what's troubling you, is the nature of my game. Signing in somewhat early for "mid-January", I guess I'll be put into the next roll cal...I've contributed to Middle-earth articles greatly in the past (much of the Gondor entry, etc.) though anonymously, and I figured I might as well get a screename--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Signing in for the first time. I'll see what I might be able to do. Suriel1981 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Hello! I'm new - have done some edits on The Hobbit in the past. I am currently unhappy with the number of in-universe perspective articles this project contains. --Davémon 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

[edit] Articles for deletion

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amdir

Kept. Uthanc 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road

I'd like to call your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road. Thank you. --Fang Aili talk 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Uthanc 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribelands of Haradwaith

Non-canonical stuff. Uthanc 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merged to Harad. Uthanc 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth cosmology

Pending. Uthanc 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Carcharoth 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunce

Dab page which includes a Hobbit reference. --Fang Aili talk 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn after complete cleanup of page. --Fang Aili talk 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Karina Chmiel

Artist. Debate relisted Feb 15. --Mereda 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD notice

The related Category:The Lord of the Rings actors has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.


  • This CfD is part of a huge nomination of "actors by series" categories. I suggest we listify any such categories just in case they are deleted:
    • Category:The Lord of the Rings actors
      • Category:The Lord of the Rings film series actors -> Pretty decent list already at The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy#Cast; we should check for any gaps, though.
      • Category:The Lord of the Rings Radio 4 adaptation actors

Are there any more categories like this? --Fang Aili talk 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll pop over and have a look. I'll also listify them somewhere. Carcharoth 00:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of actors involved in LotR adaptations

Listed by Carcharoth 01:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: See Category:The Lord of the Rings actors for the "redirect to cast lists" compromise solution I set up. Carcharoth 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Speech of Mordor user category

This category was just nominated for deletion as part of a large batch: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. IronGargoyle 02:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles newly made/found

[edit] New article: Roads of Middle-earth

Please add to Roads of Middle-earth, created as suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road. Personally I don't know much about the roads, but I got the article going. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 17:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Uthanc 17:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I dug up some research I did on roads in Middle-earth a few years back and added various things to the article. Will keep working on it. --CBD 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Northern Waste

Much of the info looks non-canonical to me... Uthanc 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes the article doesnt look right to me, ill try and improve it soon, unless anynone else wants to. le Dan 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've merged to Forodwaith, then moved the suspect content to the talk page for discussion. Carcharoth 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dicovered a Hobbit film article

We should keep an eye on The Hobbit (2009 film). I've categorised it, and assessed it as high-importance. Let's keep it accurate and under control. Carcharoth 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another new 'Tolkien' article

While wondering around Wikipedia, I came across alliterative verse, an old featured article from 2003. I was shocked to find only passing reference to Tolkien's extensive use of this verse form, so I added something to the talk page. More input there would be appreciated. See Talk:Alliterative verse#Tolkien and alliterative verse. A whole article on Tolkien's alliterative verse would be easily possible. Carcharoth 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minority criticisms of The Lord of the Rings

Lots of things wrong with this article IMO, take note; in here we find charges of phallic symbolism (seriously) and ripping off from Wagner's Ring Cycle. We also find racism, which had its own article some time ago. Uthanc 09:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Several music articles

Recently (re)found these articles, which had either lost their categories, or never had them and/or did not have their {{ME-project}} assessment tags on their talk pages:

The last one is actually from the 1978 film - probably needs renaming (please remember to categorise the redirect and add the new title and new talk page to Portal:Middle-earth/Pages, or leave a note at Portal talk:Middle-earth/Pages. Also, maybe turn what would then be a redirect at The Lord of the Rings (soundtrack) into a disambiguation page for LotR soundtracks, though as there are only two at the moment (1978 film and 2001-3 films) maybe don't bother just yet. Unless the The Return of the King (1980 film) had a soundtrack? Carcharoth 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New navbox template

Not really a new article, but I created a new navbox today. Have a look at {{LotR casts navbox}} and see what you think. Carcharoth 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of The Hobbit

An article to keep an eye on: The History of The Hobbit. Carcharoth 19:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family templates/Poll

The poll for templates, as of last count, was in favor of Fixed-pitch graphics. Uthanc 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists versus individual articles

We have this article listing individual weapons, and then going into general stuff. Should we keep individual weapon articles (some are notable enough, I guess), or just stick with listifying?

Same goes for Stewards of Gondor and Chieftains of the Dúnedain - most of whom are just names and dates (the Kings of Rohan were more developed). Thus, should we just put info about the individual, less notable ones under their names? Uthanc 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think stick with adding material at the lists for now. When the articles and the list duplicate each other, that is the point at which to either redirect from the article to the list (preferred), or reduce the list entry to a summary with a link to the main article (eg. Denethor will appear both on the Stewards of Gondor list and have his own entry, ditto for Eomer and Theoden). Weapons is a bit more complicated and needs more examination. Carcharoth 11:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
In light of this "lists vs. individual articles" issue, see Amdír, which is was currently up for deletion. Uthanc 14:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Paradoxically, 'List of Middle-earth Men' got deleted despite being the proper format for such information. There's currently a copy in my user space at User:CBDunkerson/List of Middle-earth Men which I hope to build out along the lines of List of Hobbits to counter statements in the deletion discussion that it would always just be a list of names with no valid information. In both this case and the Amdir one above the problem seems to be that people are demanding a 'finished product' that will take a long time to construct and deleting intermediate steps just makes it more difficult to get there. Overall, I think we should have lists and split out any items for which there is enough info to make up a sizable article on their own. --CBD 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
We have List of Middle-earth Elves now. See its Talk page for discussion. Uthanc 11:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Per CBD. I still have List of High Elves up as one of my (unfinished) projects. :P —Mirlen 04:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

There still hasn't been a consensus on terminology, as seen last page.

In short:

Using "Middle-earth" indiscriminately to describe a Tolkien setting is wrong and should not be done in articles.

Blanket phrase: "In Tolkien's legendarium" or "In Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium"

Breakdown of geography of Tolkien's legendarium:

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...

* "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'." --CBD 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this greenlighted already? Can this be on the Standards page? Uthanc 04:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If no-one objects in the next few days, go ahead. In fact, as no-one objected over the last few weeks, you could go ahead now. Carcharoth 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There are still some minor points, sorry I didn't make that clear. "Tolkien's legendarium" or "Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium"? CBD suggested the latter, and it might be less confusing. "Middle-earth" still appears but is qualified, sort of. CBD's clarification of Arda and Ambar is helpful and is ultimately the most precise we can get, but should we integrate it into the standards? It might be better added to the Arda article, but why not go all the way? Uthanc 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. Sorry. "Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium" and Arda/Ambar stuff and put in both articles and standards. Sounds great. Sorry for rushed reply. Carcharoth 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please exaplain the differences (in usage) between "blanket phrases" and "specific phrases". Are you attempting to "phase out" the blanket phrases? If so, I oppose. I think that we should be specific in an article when talking about specific locations as locations. but "Middle-earth" is nearly a genre of it's own, and it's certainly the most commonly known/accepted way to refer to the legendarium (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). - jc37 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But it's wrong. Calling Middle-earth a universe is about as right as calling Australia one, since they're both continents. That's why there's "(In) Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium" - the old familiar term is used (with qualifier), then followed by more specific phrases like "fictional world of Arda". "Blanket" vs. "specific" in this sense was the "blanketting" use of Middle-earth for all instances (world, universe, etc) versus more accurate, specific phrases. No phasing out anything but wrong usage. Uthanc 15:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I prefer "Tolkien's legendarium" for the fact that it can encompass subjects related to Middle-earth and Aman. The reason why the usage of "Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium" was suggested because it was said that Tolkien's legendarium has included stories that did not have to do with Eä. Later, it was established that Tolkien's legendarium referred to "Tolkien's fictional universe of Eä as a reference to the many works related to the universe and its legends." This means that the usage of 'Middle-earth' in that specific phrase is invalid now that we have established that Tolkien's legendarium refers to Eä. Also, the insertion of Middle-earth in that phrase still turns Middle-earth into a de-facto term, which defeats the whole purpose of this discussion: to reform the use of 'Middle-earth' as the blanket term. Therefore, I would feel uncomfortable by the usgae of "Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium" in articles such as Fëanor, whose deeds are equally prominent in both Middle-earth and Aman. I think it is a general consensus among all of us that we need to be more specific in what we define 'Middle-earth', 'Eä,' 'Arda,' and 'Aman' — and whether it categorizes as a fictional continent, universe, world, galaxy, etc.. How to go about it, is where we split. This is where we could also use some texts from JRRT himself on how he compares the geography of his legendarium with the real world. (I don't have HoME right now and I don't own the Letters, so if anyone can find anything, that would be wonderful.)
The concern about using "Tolkien's legendarium" is the confusion over using specific terms/phrases (see table above) that will vary by article. But that is just the problem we're addressing right now. It's because the terms vary article by article that the issue of terminology is brought up in the first place. We need a uniform standardization. Within degrees of flexibility, of course. But we can't have 'fictional universe of Middle-earth' in one article and 'fictional world (or land) of Middle-earth' in another. It's not professional and it is inconsistent. —Mirlen 04:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As studiously and sincerely as I can ask: How is this conversation not entering the realm of WP:OR? - jc37 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. We need to finish writing Tolkien's legendarium before we go any further on this particular issue. Carcharoth 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it to a brief stop, jc37; I was treading in a little dangerous territory. We should put the discussion on hold and start discussing how we define Tolkien's legendarium according to reliable sources. And to quote my previous post: "This is where we could also use some texts from JRRT himself on how he compares the geography of his legendarium with the real world. (I don't have HoME right now and I don't own the Letters, so if anyone can find anything, that would be wonderful.)" —Mirlen 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

We have some; see Tolkien's legendarium and its Talk page.

[edit] Terminology, con't.

I agree with Mirlen that "Middle-earth legendarium" (proposed by CBD) still leaves us with blanket term usage, which we are trying to abolish. How about "J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy legendarium"?

[[J. R. R. Tolkien]]'s [[fantasy]] [[Tolkien's legendarium|legendarium]]

Because there are legendariums about the real world, "fantasy" legendarium indicates it's fictional. "Fictional legendariums", however, would refer to Hobbit folklore including Oliphaunts, Mewlips, Gorcrows... or is "J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium" enough? Uthanc 11:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming articles and categories

Carcharoth wrote (previous talk page):

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.

So should we rename Elf (Middle-earth) to Elf (Arda), and Category:Middle-earth Men to Category:Men of Arda? Is this approved already?

As jc37 points out, Wikipedia:Naming conventions says:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

So perhaps we should leave the names alone (but not the text). Uthanc 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to leave titles of pages and catgegories and such things as "Middle-earth", even if not technically accurate, because that is the term people will recognise. More people have heard of Middle-earth than will remember the term Arda. Carcharoth 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Per Carcharoth. *grinds teeth to stop herself from pointing out a problem with the naming conventions* —Mirlen 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
For what its worth, I don't actually think that changing "Middle Earth" to "Arda" is problematic in any way with respect to the naming conventions. In fact, I think there might even be some difficulty with keeping it as-is, since "Middle Earth", as others have pointed out, is technically incorrect and causes a significant degree of ambiguity. Keeping "Middle Earth" in the names would be the equivalent of putting spiders in a "List of Insects" on the argument that far more people recognize the term "insect" than the term "arachnid". --Alataristarion 03:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The film trilogy, the medium of introduction to Tolkien for many (most?) nowadays (and for some [most?], the be-all and end-all) never once uses the term "Arda". The naming should make "linking to those articles easy and second nature." Using Arda might be easy and second nature for (some) fans, but what about other people? Undoubtedly The Encyclopedia of Arda has introduced the term to many, though. BTW it's "Middle-earth". Uthanc 08:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, makes sense. --Alataristarion 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New images

From Ted Nasmith:

Howe and Lee already did the Jackson films; besides Nasmith's the only one of the three who gave permission. In addition to these we have a Gandalf/Balrog image, a Tirion image, and a Silmarillion cover. Uthanc 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone more experience then me try to find a picture (the one I have in mind is the one from the movie with Gandalf knocking down the bridge at Kahzad-dum and the big glowing of light) for the Magic (Middle-earth) page? It seems too monotonous and needs some visuals. I would do it but I'm not that experienced witht the copyright stuff and getting images.--Randalllin 00:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If I hadn't uploaded Image:NasmithGandalfBalrog1.jpg with a tag limiting it to Balrog, Durin's Bane and Gandalf, that would serve nicely. Uthanc 09:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The WitchKing image is very well outdated because an accurate appearance to the Fellbeast was already created. Realistic, I might add, due to the creature's anatomy. I realise the pictures were made before the movies, but I find that putting them directly in an article can cause confusion regarding the Fellbeast's true appearance. I am happy you found a piece of history, however. I also ask if it is copyright infringement if I take a picture directly from the Return of the King movie or another media source and post it on Wikipedia as a new picture. Eiyuu Kou 04:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, I chose that illustration by Nasmith because I feel it better reflects Tolkien's descriptions of the fell beast than does Jackson or rather, John Howe. Look at Fell beast#Description and origin. Same reason why I put an illustration of a wingless Balrog on Balrog, by the same artist (though in fairness the movie Howe/Jackson winged Balrog is also shown). Don't replace book illustrations with movie images; we can have both of course! If you get another movie fell beast image (to replace the present one?) put it under Fair use - film screenshots with this tag: {{film-screenshot}} Uthanc 09:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problems

One I uploaded - Image:NasmithWitchKing.JPG - is currently marked with a "possible copyright violation" tag thanks to my formatting mistakes. It would help if we knew the precise nature of his permission (See my Talk page). I asked User:Dhawk1964 for Nasmith's precise conditions of use, but if he/she's deleted the e-mails, as is likely, we'll just have to contact him again. In the discussion with User:Csernica, he wrote that we can't justify fair use with what is currently written on the Dolfen, Eissmann and Nasmith images - in shot, we'll (I'll?) have to contact them. Sorry... Uthanc 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted Nasmith already. Hope he replies before Dec. 19 (deletion date, if I'm correct). The others next, probably... Uthanc 11:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's deleted, I can just upload it again, according to User:Csernica. The "no re-uploading" notice you might see applies for chronic re-uploaders who do so without the proper permission/tags. Uthanc 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I think it was more directed towards Ted Nasmith's images more so because there's a strict copyright notice on his website that isn't up as so stringent on Dolfen's and Anke's. Also, their images aren't limited to "Wikipedia only", because a lot of sites (usually fan sites) have both of the artists' art up. I can get screenshots of their email as proof, but I'll see if I can email both of them overbreak about specifying the licenses. —Mirlen 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects to sections works

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-12-11/Technology_report - where the long-awaited 'redirects to sections' feature has been implemented. This makes lists, in particular, a lot more functional, and allows categorisation of redirects so listed items can appear in the category pages. As an example, I've added Aeglos to Category:Middle-earth weapons. The lists of various minor characters can all be treated the same way. Carcharoth 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just some reminders

Keep the articles "out of universe". Just a few phrases like "Tolkien wrote", etc. helps. Uthanc 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, be careful when putting phrases like "fictional character". Gandalf is not a "fictional character in Tolkien's books/writings/legendarium" becase he did exist in that setting. We could use "from" but I think "fictional" is redundant anyway, just as we make it clear that they come from books. Uthanc 08:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons of Middle-earth Standardization

I've started the process of standardization and improvement for the Weapons of Middle-earth article. So far I've re-written the intro to be more helpful and "introductory" and I'm in the process of looking up references for various weapons. I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on the organization of the list. So far, its sorted by weapon "status" (i.e., the canonical status of a particular weapon) as well as "genericity" (i.e., is it a specific, named weapon or a generic weapon type). I discussed various other methods of organization in the new Intro, and I'd like to hear what people think about future modifications.

Also, I would like to hear what people think about the possibility of re-naming this article "Weapons of Arda", or something to that effect. This would be much more accurate and, if memory serves, indisputably so (I can't think of any weapons from the legendarium that existed or were used outside of Arda). Furthermore, I don't think that we would have too much of a problem with confusion due to this rename, especially if we re-directed "Weapons of Middle-earth" to the new page. Just a thought. --Alataristarion 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is addressed somewhere in the Talk archives - I believe the consensus was to leave the "Middle-earth" in templates alone, instead of changing them - -which means categories and articles may need to have their names changed. But I think this was overlooked. I'll bring this up in Terminology. Uthanc 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is the Realms of Arda article... —Mirlen 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly. I made a comment about this above re: Middle earth and Arda as used in list/article names. --Alataristarion 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Careful consideration of the structure of the articles, and careful use of redirects, might be all that is needed. In cases where only a small mention is needed of areas or objects outside of Middle-earth, then the Arda reference becomes pedantic. Also, geography is not always the best way to divide things up. Topic areas can be broken up by books (Silmarillion, LotR, Hobbit, etc) and by chronology (First Age, Second Age, Third Age). It really depends on what the exact topic is. Most articles are aiming to be an "all X mentioned in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings" type of thing. If Christopher Tolkien and Tom Shippey publish series/books called The History of Middle-earth and The Road to Middle-earth, and Foster publishes The Complete Guide to Middle-earth. why should we insist on using Arda instead of Middle-earth? We had the same problem over the name of the WikiProject and Portal. Can we sort this once and for all, please? Carcharoth 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree : ) - jc37 10:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. I was just wondering specifically about the above-mentioned "Weapons" article, not articles in general. --Alataristarion 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have standardized and added references to the first and largest section of the list. In addition, I have created the List of Middle-earth weapons page and redirected the Weapons of Middle-earth page to this new location. This very clearly seems to be a list, not a standard article, and this seems the logical naming convention to follow. I'd like people to look over the section that I re-did and make any comments or suggestions. Thanks! Alataristarion 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I've commented at the talk page. Good job on the referencing! Carcharoth 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Aside from citations in the lower section (which I'm working on), what needs to be done with this list in order to raise it at least to "A" status? Any review/commentary would be great. Thanks! --Alataristarion 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A few more (but not too many) quotes from Tolkien's writings to avoid people having to look everything up. Not the obvious stuff, but the stuff people might query. And put the quotes down in the footnotes. Try and find a few generic illustration or pictures of weapons. One or two will do for this general article. Also, try and remove excessive writing, as this is primarily a list. If a weapon has a lot said about it and it has its own article, the link from the title will be enough. Also, see Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 08:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cirth and Dwarf (Middle-earth)

I successfully merged Cirth with the Dwarf (Middle-Earth) pages. I haven't applied the changes yet because I want to make sure I am posting it in the right article. I also want others to watch me apply the changes and point out any flaws. I will wait until 12:00 PM Pacific time (Est. 45 minutes from now) and then I will apply the changes. If it works out, the Cirth individual article can be deleted and removing Dwarven Runes from the to-do list. --Eiyuu Kou 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf runes was merged with/redirected to Cirth some time ago, and I prefer that we keep Cirth (and Tengwar, and Sarati) separate from race articles, being a whole category by themselves, Category:Middle-earth writing systems. So I mostly reverted your changes, all right? Sorry for the belated reply. Uthanc 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I did not realize that the work was already done. That works. --Eiyuu Kou 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The added (film)s in the film trilogy article titles

To my knowledge, the three volumes are never marketed separately as The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. While meant to be helpful, the titles of the film articles just add to the misinformation and confusion. I've asked this on the films' talk pages. Should we change these? A lot of links would have to be changed, though. Uthanc 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the articles should be at The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring rather than those being redirects to pages with '(film)' appended as they currently are. However, I don't think we would have to chnage all the links... just the redirects, of which it looks like there are about forty. --CBD 14:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The article used to be there (when it was a lot smaller, about 3 years ago), and was then cut and pasted to its current location. See my comments here. As I say there, some tidying up needed, but for that one at least, a move back is not possible as history already exists there. Carcharoth 13:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links and WP:SPAM

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards#External links and WP:SPAM (alternately I could remove it and have the discussion here). Uthanc 03:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar proposal

How's this? It's pretty basic, based on the Star of the Dúnedain:

Improve me!

Uthanc 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! :-) (I don't actually like the idea of barnstars, but I do like this one!) Carcharoth 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actual proposal, minus image (Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals:

The Middle-earth WikiProject Award, a.k.a. "Barnstar of the Dúnedain", may be awarded to any user for his or her contributions regarding Tolkien-related articles and/or to the WikiProject itself. Designed by User:Uthanc (using graphics by User:Aranel which were released to the public domain).

So the wording allows other people to give out these, not just us. All right? Uthanc 09:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree that anyone should be able to give it out. Any opinions on whether this might make a better image for project templates in general? I like it. --CBD 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! The barnstar rules say "The "Barnstar" image should be generally reserved for Barnstars". I'm fine with the Tengwar myself, but let's see anyway:
Middle-earth Wikiproject This category is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. Please visit the project page for details.
Present:
Middle-earth Wikiproject This category is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. Please visit the project page for details.
Again, we might not be able to use the star anyway. I've also made one with a white background, but I prefer the first. Uthanc 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help on moving Minor miscellaeneous places in Arda

Misc is spelled wrong(i think) and it should not be their because Minor places in Middle-earth does not have misc. I think the article should be moved to Minor places in Arda and need consensus and help on this.-Randalllin 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please see WP:MOVE for how to do this yourself next time. Hope that helps! :-) Carcharoth 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babel templates

In case anyone was interested, I added a bunch of userboxes to The WP:BABEL section on constructed languages. I hadn't seen any of the ones that were already there mentioned at the project either. Irongargoyle 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolkien's umpublished work

Is there anw website with a list of tolkien's unpublished work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.253.141.76 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Not that I know of. Such a list would be difficult to compile... new letters written by Tolkien are found frequently, there's a book coming out based on some academic notes of Tolkien's which someone found folded up in a book in the Oxford library, his papers on the various Middle-earth languages have been coming out piecemeal for a few decades now (and will likely continue to do so for a few decades more), a book about previous drafts and development history of The Hobbit is due out this year, there are various unpublished manuscripts and drafts at Marquette, the Bodleian, and other locations, many of his academic and personal papers are still held by the family and unlikely to be published, et cetera. In short, there are hundreds of unpublished documents written by Tolkien scattered all over the world. --CBD 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two LCCNs need fixing in {{ME-ref}}

I was busy looking for wrong LCCNs, and I found some. The Two Towers and Return of the King have bad Library of Congress Catalog Numbers. (The LOC doesn't return anything when you do a search). If I replace these bad numbers with modern ISBNs, that will probably cause a newer edition of each book to be returned as well. Does anyone object? If not, I'll edit {{ME-ref/TT}} and {{ME-ref/ROTK}}, and make a corresponding update to Template_talk:ME-ref to show what was changed. If anyone wants a specific edition used, let me know. EdJohnston 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no actually they aren't wrong. The Library of Congress online catalog just doesn't go back far enough. Those LCCNs are listed in the original HMCO versions of the books (1955 to 1964), but the online catalog doesn't list any copies of these books prior to the 1965 edition. We could use more recent editions of the books, but if so I think we should stick with one of the versions that kept the same (hardcover) page numbering that was used consistently for the first twenty years or so. Possibly the 1965 editions since that's the earliest the Library of Congress has online. That said, is there really any reason that the version listed has to be in the online category? --CBD 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It can be helpful to have reverences for the individual editions. The first edition of Volume 1 included the (later removed) "in-world" foreword referring to the Red Book, different words used in the greeting to Gildor (elen síla lúmenn' omentielmo became omentielvo, and other differences compared to the 1966 revision. Likewise for Hobbit we might need to be able to point out differences between the first/second and the third editions. -- Jordi·✆ 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The plan with the template was to use very common versions so that the page numbering would match the copies most users have or, when there are alot of inconsistently numbered versions, to use the earliest or most complete. The template call {{ME-ref|Hobbit}} is easy to remember, but if we added different versions for each change of the text or (horrors) page numbering it would take a long time to figure out which keyword to use. Having two distinct versions for the same book might be ok... something like 'OriginalHobbit' as a keyword, but currently the edition cited is The Annotated Hobbit... which contains the original text and all sub-sequent revisions. --CBD 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the best plan is for people to use the book they have to hand. I intend to create templates for my book editions. I think this may be easier in the long run. I don't want references I add to refer to books I don't have. Carcharoth 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Those who may be tempted to think the 1954-56 editions of LOTR to be the standard ones will be chastened to read the 'Note on the Text', written by Wayne Anderson and contributed as a foreword to the 2002 HMCo editions of LOTR. Hammond explains that Tolkien had a lot of trouble with publishers mangling his words, in the era before computer typesetting. Tolkien's corrections finally caught up with the major Houghton Mifflin version around 1987 in the USA, fourteen years after his death. To see more about Tolkien's trouble with publishers revising his text, see the book Hammond (1993): J.R.R.Tolkien: A descriptive bibliography, ISBN 0-938768-42-5, which is cited in the reference section of J. R. R. Tolkien. Since the early editions don't seem to be very compliant with Tolkien's wishes, I went ahead and revised {{ME-ref}} to point to the latest editions available in paperback from Houghton Mifflin. Since you guys are the Tolkien experts, if you disagree with the editions I picked, go ahead and substitute the version you prefer. EdJohnston 23:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There have been printing errors in every version. Indeed, many were introduced in later reprintings. As to the paperback versions you switched to... is the page numbering consistent with what was used in the hardcover editions for the first twenty years of publication? If not then by changing to that edition you have made any and all page numbers listed for these books incorrect. --CBD 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see where it matters one way or the other. Every good reference should include the revision info, so the page numbers referenced always only apply to that copy. The numbering will almost certainly be wrong against any other printing you pick up. if you think page numbering was consistent in the "hardcover editions for the first twenty years of publication" you are almost certainly mistaken.--Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No, actually the page numbering was consistent. Not for the introductory pages, index, and the like... which changed several times, but for the body of the text the numbering remained consistent for a long time. Thus alot of copies of LotR use the same numbering scheme. As to 'why does it matter which version'... it doesn't except that any already existing references to the template citing the early hardcover page numbers would suddenly be incorrect when the template was changed to cite an edition with a different numbering scheme. --CBD 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Another point, the change was made to point to the latest US editions. Why not the latest UK editions? I think the solution is to have the reference template refer to one edition only, and to give US and UK publishing details. As for page numbers, a switch to using book and chapter references is long overdue. I still think that the template should be stripped down, and people will have to put in their own publishing, ISBN and page number details for their text. The most we can reliably supply is a general template for the first edition of each book he published, and the major secondary literature, plus specially written templates for the major editions. Carcharoth 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging individual articles

regarding the above, I suggested a merge based on Rivers of Middle-earth and other "Rivers of" articles. Fang Aili then pointed out that some rivers have their own articles. Since we plan to merge those dozens (hundreds?) of articles that should be merged (see what CBD wrote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amdir) eventually, perhaps we could get these done, at least. I'd keep at least Anduin and Baranduin (Brandywine), or at the very least Anduin. Or not. As Carcharoth has pointed out, redirects to sections now work...

For that matter, shouldn't some of the contents of the subcategories (and sub-sub-categories) of Category:Middle-earth places be merged ? Irongargoyle's templates wouldn't be made obsolete as long as we have at least one individual article along with a list. Uthanc 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should depend on size of the text about the individual entry. That is, including Frodo Baggins as just another entry in List of Hobbits would be crazy... but having a complete article on Daddy Twofoot would be too. Frodo is included in the complete list, but with minimal information and a link to the full article. Eventually I hope we can fully fill out that list and do the same for all categories of Middle-earth info. To the point that you'd have a top level 'Middle-earth lists' article which linked to various race, character, geography, objects, et cetera lists... which linked to individual articles for major items... such that every single Middle-earth name/article would be accessible with a few clicks from that top level list. --CBD 12:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Fang Aili talk 14:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely (though categories are useful sometimes as well). Carcharoth 15:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still lots of unassessed articles

The category for unassessed Tolkien articles (1,351 articles) is currently number 524 on the list of "Most linked categories": [1]. Not as bad as the Living people category (over 150,000), but still something we should get going on. Particularly given the recent AfD nominations. Should we start in the gutter and work upwards, or start at the top and work downwards? Assessing and cleaning up as we go? I hope to put together some statistics about the articles soon, and update the category tree/structure. Hopefully that will help. Carcharoth 03:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I can help with assessments. I always feel like "importance" is a really subjective assessment though; often I just feel like I'm guessing. --Fang Aili talk 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The first 2 I tried to assess were redirects to other articles. In these cases, I think we could tl-ify the project template like so: {{ME-project}}, so it doesn't appear on our unassessed list. --Fang Aili talk 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If it is a redirect, could you add it to Category:Middle-earth redirects please, and remove the project template altogether. Thanks. I meant to tidy up those redirects with project templates on their talk pages, but hadn't got round to it yet. Carcharoth 12:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha; will do. I suppose there's no easy way to separate the talk pages of redirects through AWB or somesuch program? --Fang Aili talk 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "separate"? If you mean which redirects have talk pages, use the {{la}} template to set up a list. I'll do that now in fact. Redlinks = no talk page. Bluelink at talk page means it might have a project tag, or have had one in the past. Unfortunately, that only covers the redirects already in the category, most of which have had their project tag removed (I think I got as far as doing that). How to find out which ones in the assessment category are redirects is a bit harder. You could set up URLs for the pages with "redirect=no", and that would save one click. I once tried to find out if you can give AWB a list of articles, and get it to spit out a combined "what links here" for everything on the list, including the "redirect" label used in the "what links here" list. That would pick them all up, and then that list could be cross-referenced with a list of "what links here" for {{ME-project}}. Ones that are in both lists would need the template removed from their talk pages. Carcharoth 15:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean somehow make a list of redirects with {{ME-project}} tag on their talk pages, so the tag can be replaced quickly with Category:Middle-earth redirects. Right now I am clicking on each talk page one by one, then clicking on the article to see if it redirects somewhere. It's fairly tedious. --Fang Aili talk 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hang on. I'll rustle up a list with the "no redirects", then that'll reduce it to one click only. Then if it is a redirect, categorise and go to the talk page and remove the tag. Carcharoth 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My initial analysis found these redirects already in the category, but that need their talk pages stripping of the project tag: [2] - [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] - [9] - [10] - [11] - [12] - [13] - [14] - [15] - [16] - [17] - [18] - [19] - [20] - [21] - [22] - [23] - [24] - [25] - [26] - [27] - [28] - [29] - [30] - [31] - [32] - [33] - [34] - [35] - [36] - [37] - [38] - [39] - [40] - [41]
Copy from the edit window for the full list. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 16:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Some false hits there. Sorry about that. I think it was some capitalisation issues I forgot in the comparison algorithm I used to intersect the redirect category with the assessment category. Carcharoth 16:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

back to left Ok, well in the meantime I have been working on the "A"s, and cleared out Q, Y, and Z. :) --Fang Aili talk 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there are 1462 articles that need assessing or removal of the tag. --Fang Aili talk 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. A lot! :-) Going back to trying to find the redirects that have project tags on their talk pages, I looked through the lits of 40 above, and found 13 that needed the tag removing (plus one you had already done), so those will be done soon. I don't know how many of the other 1462 articles are redirects, but comparing to the list at Portal:Middle-earth/Pages might help. That is a fairly comprehensive list added by CBD. I'll see how many are there (I don't think that list includes redirects). Carcharoth 03:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Just had a look at our list of images used on Tolkien-related pages. We use a lot of fair use images (mainly from the Jackson films), and they often get deleted if there is anything wrong with the licence it was uploaded with, or if someone doesn't like the way it was used. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Images and the large number of redlinks that have appeared since I expanded that page. Any ideas what to do? Carcharoth 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Add fair use rationales like mad, and make sure we're within the fair use guidelines? --Fang Aili talk 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If you understand fair use, go ahead! Carcharoth 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scale and scope of WikiProject

Have a look at Portal talk:Middle-earth/Pages for two attempts to generate comprehensive listings of the articles (and other pages) covered by this WikiProject. For more thematic groupings, see the categories and subcategories of the root categories Category:Tolkien and Category:WikiProject Middle-earth. Early results indicate that there are just over 3000 pages in total (that includes templates and category pages, but not images), and around 1300 actual articles. Carcharoth 05:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This list has now been updated with talk pages and article lists from various other sources such that it should now cover almost all of the Tolkien related pages on Wikipedia. That makes it a great resource for checking recent changes to Tolkien articles. It can also be used to spot pages which have been deleted, categories which haven't been worked into the Tolkien tree, et cetera. Of course there are likely a few pages which might not really belong on the list and some obscure ones which are missing... but overall it should be a good resource. --CBD 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks. Carcharoth 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finding the redirects (part II)

Some of those 1300 articles are not exclusively WikiProject Middle-earth stuff (eg. film actors, computer games, and so on). Those that are exclusively WP-ME should have been labelled with the WP-ME tag on their talk page, putting them in Category:Unassessed Tolkien articles. There are around 1460 of those, so it looks like at least 150, probably more, are redirects that need to have the WP-ME tag removed from their talk page, and to be put in Category:Middle-earth redirects. Either that, or they are real articles that are missing from the category structure. What is needed is to find the articles that are in the unassessed category, but not in the category structure. Most of those will probably be redirects, and there should be around 150 of them. Carcharoth 05:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Success! That analysis yielded a list of around 200 pages, most of which (from a cursory scan) are indeed redirects, and do have the WP-ME tag on their talk page, thus adding unnecessarily to the number of unassessed Tolkien articles. Please help tidying this up by following the instructions at Category talk:Middle-earth redirects. Thanks. Carcharoth 06:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
List now cleared. Thanks to Fang Aili for helping. Carcharoth 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment and importance (part II)

Following on from the above, please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality statistics. That hasn't been updated fully with all the work from yesterday, but by tomorrow (Monday) it should have the correct numbers. A manual counting of Category:Unassessed Tolkien articles shows that there are now only 984 unassessed articles. We are below the 1000 articles figure! Let's make 700 unassessed articles the next target. Please start by working on the unassessed articles in the articles in Category:Tolkien articles by importance that already have an importance rating (ie. those are the priority ones anyway). As of the time of writing, there are 22 top importance, 112 high importance, and 188 mid importance articles. That is 322 articles to assess. If you use the importance category to pick an article to assess, you might pick one that has already been assessed. So to combine both the importance and assessment category, to show unassessed articles in a particular category, use the links I've provided at the top of that category. Carcharoth 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As the trial category intersection tool is using data from November(!), that is no good. I'll do some manual intersections for the Top, High and Mid importance categories, and list the unassessed articles at the top of the importance categories I linked to above. I'm leaving the low and unknown importance categories for now, as they are, well, less important! Carcharoth 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Very important - please use the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Assessment#Quality to do assessments. That way we shouldn't disagree too much over the assessments. Carcharoth 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Current work list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment/Current work. Please help out with assessing those articles as a priority. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to do the top-importance ones for now. Carcharoth 17:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Mid-importance ones also done. Now down to 892 unassessed articles. Carcharoth 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots more assessment has been done. Look at the assessment stats box at the top right of the page, and follow the links to see what articles are in which categories. Now that the initial backlog is cleared, I think it is best to decide what to do with the ~750 unassessed ones before trying to assess them for importance or quality. Frankly, some of them, are perma-stubs that will need merging (even some of the current mid-importance ones may eventually end up being merged into another article). I want the WikiProject to try an identify these candidates for merging before going any further. What do people think the best merging plan is? Use the models of Weapons of Middle-earth and Ruling Queens of Numenor and Horses of Middle-earth?

There is still a small backlog of start and stub articles that have been rated, but not assigned any importance. If anyone wants do assign them importance, please look through the importance categories to get an idea of how I did that for the majority that have been assigned so far. I'd like to reserve the top importance category for ones that need to be worked on right now. Dwarf got bumped up to top, but there are too many ME-race articles to go there fr the moment, so I ruthlessly limited myself to the major characters and books, plus the author and Middle-earth article. I've bumped the dwarf one back down for now.

How does this plan sound? We work on the top-importance articles, trying to improve them as much as possible, and then, once that is done, we bring groups of articles up from high to top until we can all agree that the top category is complete. We can work on articles using the models of the current FA and A-class articles. I have picked out 9 articles as A-class. They might not be fully A-class, but I think they are the best we have. I reserved B-class for articles with some references and organisation, but needing more work. I ignored GA-class, as that should be a target for the B-class articles. The A-class articles can either be consolidated, put up for GA-class, or improved and put forward to FAC. I think getting the A-class articles peer reviewed would also be a good step. Carcharoth 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great plan. I can't guarantee I'll do X number of edits towards a featured article, but personally I'd love to see Middle-earth back to FA. Perhaps we can make that our collaboration. Do we do a "collaboration of the month" or something? --Fang Aili talk 01:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watching Middle-earth related pages

CBD recently (see a few sections above) completed work on an updated list of all (well, hopefully all) pages relevant to this WikiProject. Can I urge everyone to regularly review the recent changes to the pages on that list, and keep an eye out for vandalism or unintended mistakes. Some recent edits lost the bottom bits of articles, including the categories and interwiki links. this edit is an example of an edit that went unreverted for nearly a week. this edit added some good stuff, but let a category slip through the net, leaving the article uncategorised for over two weeks. Something to watch out for. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the Recent changes to Middle-earth articles described above there is also now a Random article (reset)
Both are listed on the portal and taskbox for easy access. Clicking on that 'Random-article' link will take you to one of over 2000 different Tolkien articles on Wikipedia. If you hit the browser back button and click 'Random-article' again you would end up at the same page... which is what the 'reset' link is for. Clicking that (or re-loading the page some other way) resets the link to a new random page. -CBD 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That really is great fun! And it is a much nicer way to find something to read or work on, instead of staying in one area. I've been clicking the link for several minutes non-stop... must... stop... now... :-) Carcharoth 00:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Aaaarggh! Someone delete this. I can't stop clicking it!! <ahem> :-) I'll stick it on my user page. I never go there, so that'll help. Carcharoth 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Go on... just one more click. You know you want to. :] --CBD 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. I actually found a mess and tidied it up using that random page link. See here. It seems like it will be useful for more than just compulsively browsing at random. Carcharoth 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New featured article!!

I was meandering thorough the articles, assessing them, and I had a pleasant surprise when I discovered that The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) is now featured!! (It was promoted on 20/01/2007). See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) (which we totally missed). We should congratulate User:Ibaranoff24 for getting this to featured status. I'm going to drop a note off at that user's talk page and see if the other film articles can be similarly worked up to Featured status. Carcharoth 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. We now have three featured articles - The Lord of the Rings, J. R. R. Tolkien, and The Lord of the Rings (1978 film). We also have one former feaetured article - Middle-earth. Carcharoth 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combining stubs

I agree with Carcharoth that we need to combine some of the stub articles, especially the ones that are unlikely to expand much further. Perhaps we can start with List of Kings of Rohan. Most of the kings have decent stubs, but are unlikely to expand further. Of course, I advocate keeping Theoden and Eomer's articles as-is, but perhaps there's a way to combine the lesser-known kings' information into the list. Thoughts? --Fang Aili talk 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Another--combine all the stubby "Amon"s at Category:Hills of Middle-earth? --Fang Aili talk 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Another--Kings of Arnor. --Fang Aili talk 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate stub categories and merge articles

  • I'll tackle the minor first (there are many of them). I think most of the merges will be non-controversial and simple to implement. --Fang Aili talk 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ooh. Forgot to mention. When you merge, link in the edit summaries the articles you are merging to and from. Leave the category tag on the redirect and add the redirect category, and remove the project tag from the talk page. Thanks. Carcharoth 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry. No need to worry. You did Amon Ereb just like I described. I forgot to mention the redirect should be an anchored one, but you did that as well. Well, nearly. You can actually get the redirect to go straight to the actual entry. See how Adalgrim_Took works. Carcharoth 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Wait, you want the redirected article to retain their categories? So Amon Ereb should still contain Category:Hills of Middle-earth? I'm not sure that's wise. --Fang Aili talk 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It means that people browsing the category system will be able to find what they want, and Amon Ereb could be placed in several different categories. People could also type Amon Ereb into the search box, or they could scan down a very long index list for all ME-names. We can provide all three. Those browsing the category system might expect an article when they see a link they can click on, but that is no different to linking to Amon Ereb in an article and leading people to expect an article. If they reach Category:Hills of Middle-earth, they will see a list, or individual places they can click on. Pipe-sorting can be use to put the list at the head of the category screen, with the redirects to sections of the list coming alphabetically below that, and then places with their own articles (if there are any) can be pipe-sorted to a different section of the category screen. I'll try and demonstrate, leaving the unmerged stubs to represent those places with their own articles. Carcharoth 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Ah, that does make sense. Thanks for explaining. Yes, let's see an example of that pipe-sorting; I don't quite understand how that works. --Fang Aili talk 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

After looking around a bit more, we need to be sure the groupings are logical before going ahead too fast. I just found I should have been merging to Minor places in Beleriand. In fact, I really think we should have Geography of Beleriand as an offshoot of Beleriand, rather than an endless set of "minor places" lists. Similarly, Geography of Middle-earth (with Geography of Beleriand as an offshoot of that), and so on. Planning will save a lot of hassle, so I'm going to concentrate on setting out a scheme before doing any more merging. Carcharoth 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I have only done the one merge (described above) so far. There are so many Tolkien articles; it's hard to get a good mental grasp of it all. Also, I've only read LotR, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion, so I'm not familiar with all the History of Middle-earth stuff, etc. --Fang Aili talk 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Just remembered, CBD did this list. That would be a good starting point. Carcharoth 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checklist for merging

  • Open edit window at stub (PAGENAME A)
  • Cut text from stub, leaving categories and inter-wikis behind
  • Open edit window at merge location (PAGENAME B)
  • Paste text into correct position at merge location
  • Add div-id tags at merge location and format layout
  • Save with edit summary "merge from [[PAGENAME A]]"
  • Go back to stub and put "#REDIRECT [[PAGENAME B#PAGENAME A]]"
  • Add the 'Middle-earth redirects' category
  • Save with edit summary "merge to [[PAGENAME B]]"
  • Click the redirect link to make sure it works

[edit] Kings of Rohan

I agree, with the caveat that we keep the nice table/timeline that is on the page at the moment, and put the sub-sections above or below the table. One problem with overview articles like this is that they end up being perilously close to just representing all the material found in the Rohan section of Appendix A of LotR, which is unsurprising really, as those appendices are pretty much like an encyclopedia of Middle-earth history. What we have to do to make it more than just an excessive rehash of that material, is add stuff like real-world connections, what is recorded of how and when Tolkien wrote the material in relation to the other material, add any quotes he made about specific kings from his letters, and add what people have written in books and papers about the Kings of Rohan, plus stuff from Tolkien's later, posthumously published materials (the story behind Baldor's death, for example). Some further thoughts. Where would Léod go? Here or in the List of Middle-earth Men article? Actually, Fram and Frumgar make up the known Éothéod rulers, so we could work in a list of those three. Getting back to the actual rulers, Eorl (definitely) and Helm Hammerhand (possibly) might also deserve separate articles. We would also want to merge in the family tree at House of Eorl. I also notice the family tree has a red-link Éofor. We need to make sure that redirects for those names without articles are created, and those with sections are linked from the tree, but not those without. Once some of these lists are done, some of the template bloat can be tackled as well, or at least the templates can be restricted to the appropriate places. Carcharoth 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random things

Ive started up the article on the artist/illustrator Catherine Karinia Chmiel (needs improving im getting some info form the person) and added a few things to Peoples of Middle-Earth and Northmen (Middle-earth)

No on seems to b very active atm :( le Dan 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like some more work to do? :-) Carcharoth 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol i wouldnt mind :P is there anything that needs doin that wont require ALOT of work to it? le Dan 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How about looking at the recent changes to Middle-earth and Tolkien articles here: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Portal:Middle-earth/Pages? Save that link on your user page somewhere, and check it when you get the chance, and revert vandalism when you see it. Carcharoth 01:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December to mid-January?

Shouldn't the roll call for mid-January to February be up now? MacGuy(contact me) 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that now. It'll be the, ahem, mid-February to March roll call. Sorry about that. Carcharoth 12:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A lot of new Ted Nasmith images

Uploaded by our new member Tommy9281, who understandably has only signed up in front (changing instructions there). See if there's any tagging problems... Also, the page really needs updating... might do it myself... Uthanc 14:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Middle-earth_archive7_9520.html"