Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive9

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move Angband (Middle-earth) to Angband, per the discussion below. As per WP:DAB, If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". The suggestion that the plain title should redirect to a "disambiguation" title is deprecated elsewhere on WP:DAB and would result in a listing at WP:MDP. Both entries are recognized as significant search topics (see in particular the final post here by CBDunkerson), and the current disambiguation page ensures that links can be correctly piped and all links will eventually go where they are supposed to go. If necessary, please direct any further questions to my talk page. Dekimasuよ! 03:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Moved from Talk:Angband (Middle-earth)) since the tag said it should be discussed here. Uthanc 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a dab page? The subject of this article is the primary meaning of "Angband", and any other use is likely derived from it. Angband (computer game), the only other such article, certainly is. I suggest moving this article to Angband and refer to Angband (disambiguation) in a hatnote. (Or directly to the other article since there's only one.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Uthanc 09:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Angband is a pretty unique word. --Eruhildo 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Derived status is not an issue in article naming. The only question is "What will the average reader expect/desire when typing in 'Angband'?" If no answer is overwhelmingly dominant, then that suggests that a disambiguation page is called for. To respond to Eruhildo, "Angband" is not (at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned) a "pretty unique word", because it clearly has two quite different meanings. I don't mean this as a criticism, but I am not convinced that WikiProject Middle-earth is likely to be the most objective group for determining primacy in cases like this, where there is one Middle-earth topic and one basically non-Middle-earth topic. Angband (Middle-earth) is a fairly minor aspect of Tolkien's works; Angband (computer game) is very popular, and the core around which dozens of derivative games are based. Do a Google search for "Angband" and you'll find that the game is massively dominant, and may even deserve to be moved to Angband instead. Certainly, I can't see a case for moving Angband (Middle-earth) there. --Stemonitis 08:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, a bunch of people sitting in front of computers are not the most objective group for judging whether a computer game or a literary reference is more prominent in general. Nor is Google the best criterion for deciding between something that exists only on computers and is distributed over the Internet, and something that exists primarily in print: I suggest you review WP:GOOGLE. Tolkien's works have been read by hundreds of millions worldwide who therefore know what "Angband" means, but the computer game "Angband" is known only to a relatively small group of geeks. "Very popular" in this context doesn't mean much even to the wider audience of gamers. "Massively dominant"? Oh, please! TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Move. WP:Me is of course not "the most objective" project, but Angband is not "a minor aspect": it is of vital importance, since all history of the First Age is connected to and resulting from it. Compare for example the number of articles linking to game and to fortress pages. Many articles mention Angband (game) only as a parent version of ZAngband etc. It is also to be noted that current version of Angband (M-e) is more stub-like, but can (and hopefully will) be greatly expanded in future. Moreover, it seems to be the current tendency in Wikipedia to give major M-e articles without disambiguation, compare Rohan and other. Súrendil 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Any tendencies in the naming of other articles are entirely irrelevant. I didn't mean to downplay the importance of Angband to Middle-earth, but the game is also important, and having a disambiguation page at Angband is the logical outcome when neither topic is clearly dominant, as is the case here. --Stemonitis 09:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, another suggestion. Are dab pages really needed when there's only two articles to disambiguate? If it is present, then when a user types Angband in search or somewhere, he will need to look through a dabbing page no matter what he wished to find; while if one of pages in question is placed under Angband, we have at least 50% chance (or more) that a user finds the target immediately. Súrendil 09:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DAB. Disambiguation pages are not necessary when there is one primary topic and one (or two) other topics; these can then be linked with hatlinks. Where there are two topics of roughly equal importance, a disambiguation page can be necessary. The first examples I could find are 20th Congress and MAAC, but there are plenty of others. --Stemonitis 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with TCC here... I'm inclined to believe Tolkien's Angband is better known simply because it chiefly appears in print and it predates the game by decades, but I could be wrong. If you ask me, both are somewhat obscure to the "general public"... But if there's no concrete way of showing which one is more well-known, then both should stay where they are. Back to square one... Uthanc 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien's is better-known almost as a matter of logical necessity. The origin of the name is no secret to aficionados of the game. They tell you about it right on the index pages of thangorodrim.net, which is still referenced in the online user manual hosted at the new official site (yes, it may be obsolete information, but it's still there), and on the "About" page of the larger information site about the game [3]. Add to that all the Tolkien readers who know Angband from Sil but have never heard of the game, and QED.

You're not too far wrong, by the way. I can't now recall if "Angband" was ever mentioned in LotR, but Sil was published in 1977 which gives us a terminus ad quem. The game was first released in 1990, so that's 13 years at least. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I tried to convey before, primary usage is not determined by earliest use. No-one has ever doubted that the game is named after the Tolkien creation. The question is only which is the more prevalent usage now. Searching the Internet (with all the provisos to which that is subject) suggests that the game is actually more significant than the fictional location. Trying to de-skew those results to compensate for the inevtiable computer bias towards the computer game probably leaves the two about equal. Certainly, there is enough doubt about primacy to warrant Angband remaining a disambiguation page. Historical priority is not a valid argument (cf. Boston, etc.). --Stemonitis 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect reasoning, and you have not corrected sufficiently for Internet bias. If it is at all popular, the name of a computer program distributed solely over the Internet -- or for that matter, the name of any computer-related subject -- will always show up more in search engines regardless of the real-world prominence of other meanings of the word. For example, by your logic, the primary uses of the words "doom" and "quake" are for the series of computer games, which is absurd on its face. [4][5] As I said above, the Tolkien creation is certainly known to the vast majority of players of the game, and is certainly known to many more besides that. This alone, even absent other considerations, guarantees its greater prominence. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above arguments, I agree with the proposed move (Angband (Middle-earth) to Angband, with the hatnote to the video game). I remain open to further arguments, however. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You assert that my reasoning is false, but without giving details. Yes, there's a computer bias involved, but the whole point about that sort of systematic bias is that it's almost impossible to quantify. At least I was using some sort of source. As a second source, how about Google Books? That source is presumably more or less free from the computer bias because it lists only printed works (and might therefore even have a systematic bias towards Tolkien). The first few results all refer to the game, and thereafter it remains mixed (perhaps leaning towards Middle-earth). This, again, argues for there being no primary topic. Finally, just because gamers have heard of the Tolkien creation, that doesn't mean that they think of it first when they hear "Angband", or that they expect to find it, rather than the game, at Angband. I've heard of Melbourne, Derbyshire, but that's not what I expect to find at Melbourne, even if it is the source of the name. Incidentally, you might like to check what articles we actually have at Doom and Quake. --Stemonitis 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DICT is the reason we don't have articles on the more common meaning of "doom" and "quake", not because the computer games are more prominent. You even get the dictionary definition at the top of Doom (disambiguation) -- do you really think there should be an article on that?

I explained why your reasoning was incorrect. You didn't properly adjust for Google bias, and I explained why. And I don't know what Google Books search you did, but this one: [6] lists a Tolkien book at the top. The next two are about the game, the one after that Tolkien, the next the game, and the last three on the first page Tolkien. On the next page, only one book mentions the game; the rest are all Tolkien. You can browse through more of the first few pages: guess what meaning is given most often. But there's still a bias toward computer-related meanings even there. For example, this search [7] looking for books published by O'Reilly Media, which focuses exclusively on technical subjects, yields 1336 results, which is a very large proportion of their 2062 titles according to booksinprint.com. On the other hand, although this Google Books search [8] for books published by Random House Publishing Group, Tolkien's US publisher, which publishes a very wide variety of subjects, yields 8210 results, that's a much smaller proportion of the 31217 titles listed for them at booksinprint.com. Considering that at least some of Random House's books are also on computer-related subjects, and there's plainly a very heavy bias toward that subject. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It must depend on IP or something, because following your link, the results I get begin:

• Game Programming With Python, Lua, and Ruby - Page 322 by Tom Gutschmidt - Computers - 2003 - 500 pages. Angband has been around in one variation or another for quite sometime. Its predecessors include Mona (1985) and Rogue (late 1970s). ...
• Games That Sell! - Page 247 by Mark Walker - Computers - 2003 - 550 pages If you die in Angband, you have to start all over again, which makes it massively challenging. Plus, it offers just the right balance of entertaining ...}}

And again, it has only been asserted that there is a computer bias. Who is to say that in this computer-dominated world, a computer-related topic might not actually be more prominent? There is also another sort of bias, which I mentioned briefly above, viz.' that those who watch this talk page (and, by extension, those who post comments here) are likely to have a considerable pro-Tolkien bias and to express it. This is why I have been trying to find independent sources to compare the two; very few individuals will be qualified to compare them objectively. --Stemonitis 06:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is to say that in this computer-dominated world, a computer-related topic might not actually be more prominent? The guy with the degree in Computer Science, that's who. Should I start lecturing you on biology?

All computer-related technical organizations have an Internet presence, or so close to all of them that it makes no difference. Most everyone who produces software has a web presence, and many offer their product only on the web. (e.g. Angband (computer game).) Many of those who do not, offer online sales/downloads as an an alternative distribution channel. This is an extremely broad market, and there is no clear dominant player. Books are also sold online, but I shouldn't have to prove that the market is overwhelmingly dominated by Amazon. And far fewer e-books are sold than physical books, so the online files where literary references might be present are less common. Tolkien's work isn't available in electronic form at all.

Let's do a little test. HTML is the computer language used to author web pages. A very common HTML-related topic is the <a> element (the "anchor tag"). You can't write a website without it, since it's how you implement a hyperlink, and no reference on HTML would be complete without it. Dramatic structure is the underlying arrangement of plot elements in a story. A very common topic of dramatic structure is the inciting incident: You can't write a story without it, since it's what sets up the main conflict that drives the plot, and no textbook or reference on dramatic structure would be complete without mentioning it. So let's see how many online resources there are, according to Google, for the HTML anchor tag compared to the inciting incident. If there is no bias online against literary subjects in favor of computer-related subjects, we have no reason to expect that one would dominate over the other, as they are both elementary and vital parts of any "how-to" guide in their respective fields.

• html anchor tag: about 1,980,000
• dramatic structure inciting incident: about 156,000

QED

Incidentally, the two titles you mention from the Google Books search are the second and third results I see. I'm performing the search while not logged in. If you are logged in to a Google account, you might need to check if you have any preferences or filters in place that would affect the results. Click through the first few pages of results anyway, and see what the subjects are overall. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading your comment above, I see you really are trying to assert that the computer games are a more prominent use for those words than their common English dictionary definitions. I'm sorry, but you have obviously lost all perspective. I think you may need to turn the computer off and go outside. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I second Fang Aili's motion. Angband was (and is) first and foremost a creation of Tolkien. Not only is the game's name derivative, I would question the validity of it's copyright and/or permission to use the name Angband -- if it (they) even exist. By right of primogeniture, Tolkien's Angband holds privilege over a recently invented computer game. It is the game that needs a dab, not the firstborn. Ryecatcher773 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Right of primogeniture"? Where in the naming conventions does this appear? As I have stated above, historical precedents or chronological order are absolutely irrelevant to page naming. Please read and understand WP:NC and WP:DAB before posting such comments. --Stemonitis 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is no actual primogeniture rule per se, and it is also matter of common sense. The Angband article, as it relates to Tolkien, was in existence both in literature and Wikipedia first. Being thus, it doesn't require a dab subtitle. The game does.

If the Eiffel Tower had a game named after it, do you honestly expect that there would be a need to put a dab subtitle like this: Eiffel Tower (Paris)? The answer is a resounding NO. If you wish to argue that this is not the case with less obvious articles and dab subtitles, there are plenty of those also.

I think you are the one who ought to read the WP:DAB a bit more closely, the subheading of Primary Topic in particular. This is a matter of which came first, and as someone before me already argued, what would reasonably be expected to find under the heading. Tolkien's work The Silmarillion was around in the 1970's.

Tolkien's Angband, as well as the Wikipedia article about it, came first. The article on the game itself states that it is based on Tolkien's work, so where's the argument? Being that Tolkien is credited in the game article, and on the game's website, it is obvious that most everyone who who search the name on Wikipedia knows of Tolkien's Angband, while the reverse cannot be said. Although we cannot verify it, it is reasonable to assert that the majority of those coming to Wikipedia and looking up Angband, will expect to find Tolkien, but not necessarily a video game article. This is particularly relevant in light of the recently released The Children of Hurin, in which the place name 'Angband' appears frequently. Being that the game article cites Tolkien, we can go ahead and assume that Tolkien's Angband needs no disambiguation. Everything derived from Tolkien's creation, however, necessitates disambiguation. The original article does not.

In summary: Angband is an invention of Professor JRR Tolkien. His creation existed first. The game, Angband, was professedly taken from tales written by him. Wikipedia clarifies what protocol for an original topic is and the naming convention for a well-known primary meaning with regards to dab. Angband as a place in Tolkien's Beleriand, is known to both the readers of Tolkien and the gamers. Tolkien's Angband article needs no subtitle. Angband, the game, does. Period. End of discussion. Ryecatcher773 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter what came first. Melbourne, Derbyshire came first, but that doesn't matter. Chronological order is not relevant. Derivative status is not relevant. None of these things is relevant. Primary usage is not determined by age. The section on "primary topic" does not mention age, because age is not relevant. --Stemonitis 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevant point isn't priority, it's that the game was named for the Tolkien creation for which the priority of the latter is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition. The origin of the name is acknowledged in the game's documentation: the game's creators were themselves Tolkien fans, which is why they chose the name. It can therefore be reasonably inferred that nearly all players of the game know of the Tolkien creation and consider it the primary meaning, since in the real world unless a namesake becomes overwhelmingly more popular than the original this is how most people would decide which is primary and which is not. But absent that, there are many other people who have read Tolkien's work who have not played or have not heard of the game. (No citation is needed to prove this, as the inverse, that everyone who has read Tolkien's work has heard of the game, would be the extraordinary claim requiring evidence.) For these people, the original meaning must necessarily be the primary since they either don't know or or don't care about the other.

Now can you stop obsessing on "first" and say something to prove your unsourced assertions? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You obviously haven't digested a word of what I've written, I am quickly beginning to realize that you are not a reasonable person. I have nothing more to say to you. Good day. Ryecatcher773 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, 20 years from now the game will only appear in computer history books, but people will still be reading the Silmarillion. At least that's my prediction. I don't play that type of game very often so I don't really have a feel for exactly how popular it is these days, but I believe Tolkien's works to be quite a bit more prominent right now - especially with advent of Jackson's movies. And I believe that it will remain that way in the future. So I still vote for a move. --Eruhildo 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, and that's partially the point, Eruhildo. The game itself isn't even a licensed or commercially viable product. It's a low-fi game put together along the same lines as the stuff that was around in the early to mid 80's. We aren't talking about a legitimately product licensed by the Tolkien Estate, or through New Line Cinema. This isn't an Electronic Arts game or something by TSR. The only people that would be aware of it would be the cooperative 'active community' that plays it. If this were a copyright hearing, there would be a cease and desist order slapped on the game's creators. To argue what should be the precedent is a laughable endeavor. We are talking about literature that predates modern computer science, let alone a game made by some coding junkies with an excess of free time. If anyone wants numbers of how many people know about The Silmarillion versus this game, perhaps we could submit a query to Houghton Mifflin for how many editions they have printed (and sold) over the decades as well as the numbers for The Children of Hurin. If this is to be a poll, then I cast my stone for a move as well. Ryecatcher773 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What may be in 20 years time is a matter for us to consider in 20 years time and not before. None of the points Ryecatcher773 raises are especially pertinent. That the game is "low-fi" does not affect its notability, nor the alleged status of its creators and maintainers as "coding junkies with excess free time" (which clearly qualifies as a personal attack). Our conventions call for the article "Angband" to host the topic which the majority of readers would expect to find at that title. So far, the only evidence to have been provided that that majority would expect the place featured in The Silmarillion is a simple, unsourced assertion. Moves requests are, critically, not votes, but rely on the arguments presented, in the light of the naming conventions and other standard practices. Please restrict your comments accordingly. --Stemonitis 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, the only evidence to have been provided that that majority would expect the place featured in The Silmarillion is a simple, unsourced assertion. That's false, and you know it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting really sick of this whole argument. Can we just make a decision and act on it? From what I can tell, there seems to be one vote against and several votes for a move. Let's just come to a consensus already. I am willing to go along with whatever decision is made even if I don't agree with. Please, let's just finish this. --Eruhildo 05:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote; read WP:RM. The process is due to finish on the 15th at around 06:51 (UTC). --Stemonitis 06:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I suggest making Angband redirect to Angband (disambiguation). Uthanc 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure that we should discuss until the 15th, Stemonitis? I wouldn't mind discussing until then; i'm just curious where you got that date.

He seems to be asserting that the process must take 5 days -- no such requirement exists in reality -- and it seems that notwithstanding my original post was made back in April and that the original supporting comments were made starting 3 July, he's setting the time for the start of the process to the beginning of his own involvement. Why that should necessarily be the case I don't know. I'm not sure where the 0651z time comes from; it doesn't correspond to anything in the foregoing.

Meh. There are no deadlines here and there's no reason to hurry. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thus far--

• Supports move as articulated above by TCC: TCC, Uthanc, Eruhildo, Fang Aili, Ryecatcher773, Súrendil
• Opposes move: Stemonitis

Corrections and addendums welcome. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DAB. Which is original and derivative is not important for disambiguation. There are two things called Angband, a place in a fictional world and a computer game in the real world, and I don't think the former has 'clearly dominant usage'. --Kusunose

Though I believe the book one is dominant (and thus would prefer a move), we'll only go in circles arguing over the dominance of either usage. To reiterate my compromise proposal:

• Redirect Angband to Angband (disambiguation) for now. That way neither usage gets "primary" article space.Uthanc 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

When there's no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)" per WP:DAB. --Kusunose 01:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No-one agrees on which is the cleary dominant primary topic, but they all agree one is. WP:IGNORE that bit. Uthanc 03:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Whose idea was it to discuss this here anyway? How do we find someone objective to close this? I thought WP:RM was the place for this sort of thing? Someone ask over there and get this request closed already! :-) Carcharoth 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's guidelines on this are fairly simple. If one usage is vastly more likely to be intended by a person typing the term in a link or search box then the term should go directly to that usage. Otherwise it should go to a disambiguation page. There are currently 61 pages linked to the computer game and 103 to the fictional location. Of the 30 linked to Angband itself a bare majority seem to be intended for the fictional location and about a quarter each for the game and those actually intended for the disambig page. Thus, the location is clearly more frequently linked, but not overwhelmingly so. Which term users are more likely to search for cannot be quantified so precisely and is subject to interpretation. I think the argument that most people searching on the game know of the existence of the fictional location in the stories is accurate - and thus that they would not be surprised to get the location. However, again neither destination seems overwhelmingly more likely to be searched for... a substantial number of people will come to Wikipedia looking for information on each. I wouldn't object to Angband being for the fictional location as that seems overall the more widely known/linked, but practically I think the 'most proper' result is likely to have Angband as a disambiguation page (as it is now). I can't really see a case for going directly to the game. --CBD 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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