Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Tolkien Gateway

(Difference between revisions)
m
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
::Note "apparently" - I don't have that issue and I would like to check before adding it. It would be good to know how TG is mentioned.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 14:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 
::Note "apparently" - I don't have that issue and I would like to check before adding it. It would be good to know how TG is mentioned.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 14:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::So, are you asking me to check? --{{User:Mith/sig}} 14:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::No.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 14:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::Could you look it up?--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 16:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 +
 
==Discussion==
 
==Discussion==
 
By 'Negotiations with TORn (2007? 2008?)' do you mean the email exchanges I had with them? I can post them here if you like. --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 18:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 
By 'Negotiations with TORn (2007? 2008?)' do you mean the email exchanges I had with them? I can post them here if you like. --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 18:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:51, 14 November 2012

Things to add in (notes to myself and others):

  • Negotiations with TORn (2007? 2008?);
  • Earliest history about which we know little;
  • Growth in members (I have this); (see Tolkien Gateway:Membership Growth)
  • Growth in articles (I don't have this);
  • Important events in community (within history, not separate section);
  • Screenshots of TG. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to add, apparently the first mention of TG in print (Amon Hen 201): User talk:GaramondBophîn#Thanks :).--Morgan 23:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Add it, then! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 09:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Note "apparently" - I don't have that issue and I would like to check before adding it. It would be good to know how TG is mentioned.--Morgan 14:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
So, are you asking me to check? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No.--Morgan 14:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you look it up?-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  16:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Discussion

By 'Negotiations with TORn (2007? 2008?)' do you mean the email exchanges I had with them? I can post them here if you like. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  18:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's up to you, you can do. (I've finished doing what I can with this article, now, so hoping others will add/change as they see fit.) --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I might do it when I get time. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

GREAT article Mith! Good work! :D -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifactor

Should we mention in this article that our WikiFactor is 39? --Amroth 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth it. It says here that we're WikiFactor 32 (not 39, as you said) and they've classed us as a vibrant wiki. Although it still classes us an an OpenEdit wiki, when we're not (for the time being at least). -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The last time they updated that was in May 2010, I've calculated the new Wikifactor (with Popular Pages) which is 39. --Amroth 12:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit: Just to let you know I updated their page a bit. --Amroth 12:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering, why did you take us down from vibrant to active, Amroth? — Mithrennaith 05:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
+1 on that question. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
According to this list, a wiki is vibrant when it is more then active. I don't think there are that much edits to be a wiki that is more then active. But if you don't agree, go ahead and change it. --Amroth 08:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
From the description of the Category:active, also when combined with that list, I get the impression that ‘active’ describes a very basic level where the wiki is functional and basic housekeeping is performed. Our wiki is definitely more than that, there are several editors who develop projects or work more or less steadily to improve a specific group of articles or field of knowledge. Also, don’t forget that we have regular meetings.
Furthermore, the description of the Category:vibrant gives a number of grounds to conclude that a wiki is more than active, enough to merit the label ‘vibrant’. We certainly have significant content; the fact that we are discussed now and again on other Tolkien sites and fora indicates that we generate a certain level of interest. Moreover, it was apparently already felt that TG merited the label ‘vibrant’, I think there is enough ground to let that stand. — Mithrennaith 23:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, I’ve put it back to ‘vibrant’, I’ve also repaired (‘with duct-tape’) the broken image of our logo there and the broken link to our stats, updated the number of pages and added our interwiki partners there (same as had already been done for Ardapedia, the others are not listed on wikiindex). — Mithrennaith 00:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I think we more than qualify as a 'vibrant' wiki.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 2011

Some notes on what could be included in a 2011 section:

  • Charity
  • Mithilien and Technical updates
  • Discussion about Sindarin/Quenya names, minor plant articles and games.
  • Quin/Vector?
  • Editors
    • Gamling (Letters and general)
    • Morgan (books)
    • Amroth (gaming)
    • Pinkeith (gaming)
    • Hyarion (technical)
    • Mith (technical and general)
    • Ederchil (lurking)
    • Sage (language)
    • KingAragorn (Images)
    • Dward Lord
    • Tik
    • Grond
    • Others?

--Amroth 15:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely would not accept I am simply technical, considering the amount of effort I've put into things like redesigning infoboxes (and updating the infoboxes on pages which have them) and standardising and preparing the ground for the date articles. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean you only did technical work, just like Morgan didn't only work on books. I just found that your technical work should be mentioned aswell. --Amroth 15:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Did I do nothing noteworthy? -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  17:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Images?
IF there's anything which is uncomplete or incorrect in the list, please change it. --Amroth 14:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)