Talk:Beleriand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle-earth Wikiproject This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment
Start
This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Y.T. vs Y.S.

The realms are all listed as founded in Y.T. #; in some cases it should obviously be Y.S., but I'm not sure of all of them. —Tamfang 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think nearly all of the listed realms were founded at the beginning of the Years of the Sun, except for Doriath and Angband; so I have changed it --Galadh 08:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notability

have provided notability and refs.Tttom1 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start, but we'll probably need more than a few references from book reviews to firmly establish independent notability. —Mirlen 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Be my guest.Tttom1 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regions and realms

In light of the recent discussion over at WP:TOLKIEN, we should compile a list of regions to merge within the list, Minor places in Beleriand. We could start off with merging some of the realms within the list. Also, I think we should create a seperate section discussing the prominent regions of Beleriand (i.e. some of its realms), but link back to those who can sustain seperate articles in the article. —Mirlen 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] in out universe

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) "Please note that this page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics". "The rule of thumb is to use as much secondary information as necessary and useful to give the article a real world perspective, not more and not less.""As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation."Tttom1 (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to Be Bold — to quote, "How many times have you read something and thought, 'Why aren't these pages copy-edited?' Wikipedia not only allows you to add to, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it." It is the nature of Wikipedia for somebody to implement any changes he or she might seek. We could always use fresh eyes to make valuable edits; that's why we try to encourage and recruit more editors to be bold, instead of having edits limited to the same batch of editors. —Mirlen 05:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but why is a certain admin not bold enough to edit an article she doesn't like herself instead of tagging it and commanding others to do the work for her? Cush (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. A tag such as {{inuniverse}} isn't a command, it's a request, and it can be added by any editor. The reason I added the tag rather than rewriting the article is that I lack the expertise in the subject to rewrite it; the tag identifies the article for the benefit of those who do have the necessary expertise.
The edits by Tttom1 have improved it, but the article is still primarily a selective plot summary (see WP:PLOT) rather than an analysis of the subject or of its relevance to the real world. There is, for example, no discussion of third-party commentaries or criticism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If you lack expertise, why don't you just leave the article alone, or for that matter all Tolkien-related articles? Instead of constantly criticizing by tagging articles you should contribute something substantial, and if you are unwilling or unable to then just remain quiet. We've already been through this. I do think Wikipedia would be better off without you and your intrusive, bossy, dismissive, demanding, pedantic attitude and your little private crusade against this fantasy literature. Just let the other admins who are involved in the Middle-earth WikiProject handle this and back off. Cush (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA please, Cush.
As we have been through this before: an editor does not need to be an expert in a subject to identify structural deficiencies in articles. You have already made clear that you don't see any need to establish notability or to refrence articles to verifiable sources, and while you are entitled to your views, wikipedia's policies and guidelines remain clear on those points.
A wikiproject does not "own" any articles, and wikipedia does not have no-go areas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the guideline on fiction is that the out of universe aspect is satisfied for this article, the initial fiction/legendarium opening used as a standard throughout wkMe has been, by consensus of the editors involved, an accepted minumum standard and is applied fairly universally throughout the M-e section. If this current standard is to be challenged, let's hope it doesn't result in spam tagging and acrimony. Many articles in many other areas besides fiction don't meet even the minimum standards of the 'spirit', let alone the 'letter', of various wiki policies - not to mention what is suggested by various guidelines. That's not to say that some M-e arts aren't just bad rewrites of Tolkien that hie pretty close to violating copyright because they lack " adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it". That phrase must also be applied to the use of secondary sources as well.Tttom1 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more problematic articles elsewhere, just as there are much better ones elsewhere, but neither point is relevant to the deficiencies of this article (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).
The opening does appear to be tolerated by WP:ME, it still falls well short of the standards required in WP:PLOT and particularly in WP:WAF. For example, there is no critical analysis, no discussion of the critical reception of Beleriand, and the overwhelming majority of the article is a history of the place "written like an historical account" (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective). Tttom1 has improved the article, but there's still a long way to go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of other stuff exists, there are plenty of articles that are in need of tagging in the hope they will be improved, they are sure to get tagged someday. This article, and others like it, make clear at the outset they are about fiction and this, in my opinion, satisfies at once the spirit behind the guideline of writing about fiction. I've added some additional sources and out of universe commentary that expand the out of universe aspect. It may not be a good article, at this point, but its better than it was, better than a stub and not in any way confusing that fiction is being discussed. "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."Tttom1 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
TTom1, I don't see how the rules prevent any improvement. Quite the contrary, the rules are encouraging improvement here. You have done some useful work, but there's more to be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
And so improvement is achieved vis a vis the 'out of universe' guideline. I don't see any need for further revision along that line. More revision in that regard would be choice, not requirement. I'm not saying you, or some other, couldn't expand the 'out of universe' aspect, they are welcome to - I'm saying there's no particular need to - other than style. Spirit is satisfied and Letter as well to some extent, there's no confusing that this article is about a fictional place and how it exists in several notable novels. Again: "The rule of thumb is to use as much secondary information as necessary and useful to give the article a real world perspective, not more and not less."Tttom1 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Thanks to your good work, the article has been improved from having no real-world perspective, and does indeed acknowledge that the article is about a fictional place. But it still includes no perspective other than that of the author, and its focus remains entirely on plot lines. I'm not saying that that material should be deleted, just that there is no critical analysis, still no discussion of the critical reception of Beleriand, and the overwhelming majority of the article is a history of the place "written like an historical account". This isn't a criticism of your work in improving the article, just a note that more needs to be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the complement you're very gracious. However, I believe that the "written like an historical account" you speak of is actually: "Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source."(see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Primary_and_secondary _information) and "Examples of information available in primary sources include: "history of fictional locations or organizations". I'm not dismissing your claim but I see that as the answer to it. Also, adding a particular bibliography of secondary and tertiary sources, along with maps, covers and adds to the most of the demand for critical reception from that aspect of the guideline of writing about fiction, especially when taken with the critics' reviews of the books containing Beleriand and its doings. I don't think this can be said about this article: "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis" because it does not ignore the real-world context or sourced analysis. Further, on the basis of that (at least the 'ignoring' part), I would again argue that the current consensus convention in M-e articles of stating this is part of a fictional creation, legendarium, etc at the outset obviates the charge of 'in-universe' perspective and keeps things simple, avoiding Instruction creep. It also encourages editing by Tolkien fans who, if nothing else (and of course they provide more), can advance an article past a stub and leave it to others, in due time, to improve where necessary.Tttom1 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt the conversation here, but I just wanted to clear up one thing. My comment to Tttom1 was because I thought another member of WP:Me could direct the article to improvement with new insights that old editors of this article, such as myself, have missed. While I do appreciate BrownHairedGirl's constructive criticism, which I do believe on some points are valid, I understand that it was a criticism that came from a different perspective outside of WP:Me (and Tolkien geeks) — so I did not expect her to edit Tolkien-related articles with the same expertise a member of WP:Me might have so it could be improved directly through his/her own action.
Now to address the current issue. I do think BrownHairedGirl's comments that there is a need of independent notability is valid, because there is. There is a list of secondary sources we could use to establish some form of independent notability. However, I agree with Tttom1 that "adding a particular bibliography of secondary and tertiary sources, along with maps, covers and adds to the most of the demand for critical reception from that aspect of the guideline of writing about fiction." On Wikipedia's guidelines for defining notability for fiction, it's states that ONLY "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Notice that it does not require fictional places or characters the same treatment — only for published works (i.e. novels and books). The only requirement Wikipedia requires for notability is:
“ A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ”
Therefore, Tttom1 is very much valid in stating that a "a particular bibliography of secondary and tertiary sources" would be sufficient enough to cover Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. This is not to say we should not add sourced analysis; if there is, it should be sourced and well-balanced with primary with independent secondary ones. If there isn't such a heavy coverage in the article but if the subject is discussed in many sources independent of primary sources, I don't think it should automatically be classified as not being worthy of being a part of Wikipedia. For Tolkien articles not related to published works covering fictional material or any fictional story (i.e. Luthien and Beren), I think sourced analysis and real-world context is a must. For articles mainly covering fictional characters or places and such, I do not think the rules have to be so stringent or restricting when Wikipedia itself seems to suggest that a biliography/further reading sections of independent secondary and teritiary sources seems to be sufficient. Like Tttom1 has said, it is following the spirit and not the letter that is more important.
After (or while) we have that covered, then we should encourage a coverage of independent sourced analysis and/or "real-world context" on as much articles as possible. Editing is a slow, gradual process, and with many articles — even as much as 1,000 — on the members' hands, we need more time and patience at one baby step at a time, fulfilling the most basic requirements for a majority of the articles as much as we can, and then starting up and expanding from there with other improvements, such as adding sourced analysis to articles covering fictional places and characters. —Mirlen 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)