Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/1 May 2011/Transcript

< Tolkien Gateway:Meetings | 1 May 2011
Revision as of 12:32, 2 July 2012 by KingAragorn Bot (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

[2011-05-01 20:23:16] <KingAragorn> Welcome to Tolkien Gateway's <insert number here> meeting! KingAragorn, Mith, Amroth, Ederchil, Hyarion and Morgan are all present.
[2011-05-01 20:23:29] <KingAragorn> First up is Ederchil with 'Continuing the OR discussion? '
[2011-05-01 20:24:36] <Morgan> Difficult when Sage isn't here, who particpated much in the discussion
[2011-05-01 20:24:44] <KingAragorn> Link: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Template_talk:Or
[2011-05-01 20:25:40] <Ederchil> Yeah, and neither is Gamling
[2011-05-01 20:26:12] <Amroth> yes, maybe we could first do the other subject.
[2011-05-01 20:26:17] <Amroth> Maybe Sage comes online latter.
[2011-05-01 20:26:17] <Hyarion> fine by me, table until a later time
[2011-05-01 20:26:34] <KingAragorn> ok, next up is Ederchil with 'Any update on Captcha and email confirmation, or the spam fight in general?'
[2011-05-01 20:27:06] <Morgan> true, he added himself as an attendee
[2011-05-01 20:28:00] <Morgan> Ederchil - you added the topic - was there something specific you thought of?
[2011-05-01 20:28:00] <Morgan> Sorry, KA!
[2011-05-01 20:29:34] <Ederchil> Well, truth be told, the "Ideas for Agenda" needed some content.
[2011-05-01 20:29:34] <Morgan> ;)
[2011-05-01 20:29:34] <Ederchil> So I wondered if Mith and Hyarion have some news.
[2011-05-01 20:29:34] <Mith> I don't have any news.
[2011-05-01 20:29:34] <Hyarion> I was hoping to get MW upgraded and email fixed last night, but that didn't happen
[2011-05-01 20:29:34] <Hyarion> so no news yet for me either, but I've got the afternoon free so I'm going to try and at least get one of those projects done
[2011-05-01 20:29:34] <Morgan> Nice!
[2011-05-01 20:29:55] <Ederchil> It isnt as annoying as last time 'round, but it's still annoying
[2011-05-01 20:30:15] -->| AndroUser (androirc@2E7F38BF.79FA10D5.1BC179BF.IP) has joined #Wiki
[2011-05-01 20:30:15] <Morgan> You mean the spamming, right?
[2011-05-01 20:30:20] <Ederchil> Yeah.
[2011-05-01 20:30:23] <Morgan> Gamling?
[2011-05-01 20:30:46] =-= AndroUser is now known as Hyarion|downstairs
[2011-05-01 20:30:54] <Morgan> Haha, ok!
[2011-05-01 20:32:03] <Amroth> Could it be possible to post a little summary of the discussion on the meeting page?
[2011-05-01 20:32:45] <Hyarion> yea, the spamming needs to go, I think requiring an email verification will cut that down a bit more
[2011-05-01 20:32:45] <Amroth> So if people don't have enough time to read (or there is no) the transcript they can immediatly see what was the decision.
[2011-05-01 20:32:54] <Hyarion> good idea
[2011-05-01 20:33:24] <Morgan> It takes someone to do it, but it's a good idea!
[2011-05-01 20:33:28] <Morgan> Ok, I've got something that needs to be added to the topics - the unresolved "minor" articles (though I personally think we reached a sort of consenus on the talk page, which didn't include Mith unfortunately)
[2011-05-01 20:33:41] <KingAragorn> I think we've summarised about 3 meetings, I intended to do it for every one but didn't find the time
[2011-05-01 20:34:25] <Morgan> Should we discuss the "minor" articles issue today or postpone it to a later meeting?
[2011-05-01 20:34:32] <Hyarion> we usually don't decide on too many things, so it is probably easiest to just like any decisions that were made, opposed to a summary of every topic discussed
[2011-05-01 20:35:19] <Hyarion> I'm trying to remember what everyone's consensus was on that discussion
[2011-05-01 20:35:33] <Ederchil> I'm trying to remember mine
[2011-05-01 20:35:42] <Morgan> I'll have to check which of the talk pages it was...
[2011-05-01 20:35:42] <KingAragorn> I don't think there was a consensus
[2011-05-01 20:35:47] <Hyarion> I'll just go with the opposite of whatever Ederchil thinks.
[2011-05-01 20:36:09] <Morgan> :)
[2011-05-01 20:36:20] <Amroth> Cabbages and Apples, I think/.
[2011-05-01 20:37:09] <Morgan> http://www.tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Talk:Cabbage
[2011-05-01 20:37:09] <Morgan> http://www.tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Talk:Apples
[2011-05-01 20:38:40] <KingAragorn> I think most favoured "Only particular instances should be mentioned that are special to Tolkien's world: The best beer in the Eastfarthing at the Golden Perch decided Frodo on taking his short cut to avoid a delay. Gandalf put a 7-year enchantment on Butterbur's beer for his good news. The beer of 1420 was especially good and became a byword. "
[2011-05-01 20:39:28] <Morgan> Yeah - do you have any comment on this, Mith?
[2011-05-01 20:40:23] <Mith> It all depends what exactly is meant by "Only particular instances should be mentioned that are special to Tolkien's world"
[2011-05-01 20:40:50] <Mith> Cabbage definitely doesn't fall in that description
[2011-05-01 20:41:22] <Morgan> True.
[2011-05-01 20:43:00] <Morgan> However, should we then delete such a page? Or is it bad to let articles which doesn't conform to a standard still be left on TG? (sorry for badly constructed sentence)
[2011-05-01 20:43:28] <Mith> Yes, it should be deleted
[2011-05-01 20:43:31] <Mith> And all others
[2011-05-01 20:43:35] <Amroth> I'm in favour of keeping these articles.
[2011-05-01 20:43:35] <Mith> If this is the policy
[2011-05-01 20:43:53] <Mith> If we keep already existing articles it's no policy at all
[2011-05-01 20:43:56] <Hyarion> agreed, if the policy is not to have them then we need to delete any articles that don't follow the policy
[2011-05-01 20:44:09] <Morgan> But is the policy a guideline or a rulesbook?
[2011-05-01 20:44:14] <Amroth> But that's my opinion.
[2011-05-01 20:46:54] <Mith> Well, if we call it a guideline it's a manifesto for people to ignore it, isn't it?
[2011-05-01 20:47:16] <Mith> Imagine if paying tax was more a guideline
[2011-05-01 20:47:24] <Hyarion|downstairs> agreed
[2011-05-01 20:47:31] <KingAragorn> it's what's known as a 'Clegg promise'
[2011-05-01 20:48:59] <Amroth> Maybe we could make one article/list for the articles that don't fall under that policy (like cabbages).
[2011-05-01 20:49:11] <Amroth> Like Wikipedia does with Middle-earth food and drink.
[2011-05-01 20:49:41] <Amroth> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Middle-earth_food_and_drink
[2011-05-01 20:50:12] <Mith> Sorry
[2011-05-01 20:50:16] <Mith> If we have a policy
[2011-05-01 20:50:21] <Mith> It applies to all
[2011-05-01 20:50:38] <Mith> Otherwise it's not a policy, it's Swiss cheese
[2011-05-01 20:50:54] <Mith> Whatever we decide we have to be consistent
[2011-05-01 20:50:57] <Morgan> What do you mean? If we have a policy on not having such articles, why couldn't we include them in a list?
[2011-05-01 20:51:15] <Hyarion|downstairs> what Morgan said.
[2011-05-01 20:51:29] <Mith> But Amroth said, "articles that don't fall under that policy"
[2011-05-01 20:51:51] <Morgan> I think it he just misspelled ;-)
[2011-05-01 20:51:58] <Amroth> yes
[2011-05-01 20:52:53] <Mith> I always said, I wanted these articles gone and a list instead
[2011-05-01 20:52:53] <Mith> I noticed, though, that that Wikipedia article only includes foods particular to Middle-earth...
[2011-05-01 20:53:23] <Amroth> wikipedia doesn't focus on Middle-earth allone, by far.
[2011-05-01 20:53:57] <Mith> Indeed! More of a reason why they could include mroe because they have proper articles on them!
[2011-05-01 20:54:19] <Morgan> I think I've mentioned it before, but this is what I did for the minor animals:
[2011-05-01 20:54:19] <Morgan> http://www.tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Fauna_of_Arda
[2011-05-01 20:54:23] <Morgan> (list)
[2011-05-01 20:54:50] <Morgan> Didn't we have some idea on making some namespace for lists? Like "List:Fauna of Arda"
[2011-05-01 20:55:20] <Amroth> Wasn't that Index?
[2011-05-01 20:55:39] <Mith> Although, of course, I note that the vast majority of animals appear to have been given their own article
[2011-05-01 20:55:42] <KingAragorn> AFAIK the 'Index:' namespace has been implemented
[2011-05-01 20:56:13] <KingAragorn> although we can't make big lists because we can't edit big articles - any news on this problem Hyarion?
[2011-05-01 20:59:45] <Hyarion> not yet, but hopefully the MW upgrade will resolve it
[2011-05-01 21:00:27] <Morgan> So, a sort of consensus could be:
[2011-05-01 21:00:29] <Morgan> a) Implement Gamling's option 2 as a policy
[2011-05-01 21:00:51] <Morgan> b) add other "minor" concepts to approriate lists
[2011-05-01 21:01:06] <Amroth> http://www.tolkiengateway.net/wiki/User:Amroth/sandbox2
[2011-05-01 21:01:23] <Amroth> with the list I was meaning such thing.
[2011-05-01 21:01:25] <Morgan> c) if one of those minor concepts is contested, that can be done on the talk page of the list article in question
[2011-05-01 21:02:29] <Morgan> ?
[2011-05-01 21:02:52] <KingAragorn> maybe maybe
[2011-05-01 21:03:42] <Morgan> (with "minor concepts is contested" I mean that someone adds enough reasons, like apparition in other fiction by Tolkien, etc, of a concept that has been deemed as minor)
[2011-05-01 21:05:08] <Hyarion> just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many non-Middle-earth specific plants/animals are mentioned?
[2011-05-01 21:05:09] <Morgan> Nope, sorry
[2011-05-01 21:05:09] <Amroth> no
[2011-05-01 21:05:21] <Amroth> probally quite some.
[2011-05-01 21:05:46] <Hyarion> that might sway my opinion, depending on how many are actually out there.
[2011-05-01 21:06:18] <Mith> A ridiculous number probably. All articles just waiting to happen...
[2011-05-01 21:06:34] <Morgan> Hyarion, along with I and Amroth, you've been on the "pro-side" of keeping the minor articles. What do you think of my proposal for a consensus?
[2011-05-01 21:07:57] <Morgan> (on a side note, if we decide on this policy, perhaps we should discuss policies for how to structure/use lists another time)
[2011-05-01 21:08:57] <Hyarion> I don't have any argument with the idea proposed by Morgan.
[2011-05-01 21:09:15] <Morgan> (Sorry for trying to get everyone involved! ;-) ) KingAragorn: why maybe, maybe? Would you mind to expand?
[2011-05-01 21:09:57] <Amroth> same here, Morgan's proposel is a good sollution.
[2011-05-01 21:10:05] <KingAragorn> I really don't mind what happens
[2011-05-01 21:11:35] <KingAragorn> we don't currently have any other concrete policies that are enforced, if something is agreed here how would it be enforced?
[2011-05-01 21:13:09] <Hyarion> I don't know about that, we enforce policies every day, our policy on spelling things correctly, not posting spam, etc :)
[2011-05-01 21:13:20] <Morgan> Ok - a hypotethical situation - let's say we decide that "Sheep" isn't worthy an article of its own (which would probably be the case). We decide to delete the page and then mention the sheep in a list. Then, however, an unpublished writing by Tolkien is suddenly published, in which sheep play the main role (sorry for bad example!). We then decide to re-create the article on sheep. My question is thus: would the article history then be lost
[2011-05-01 21:13:47] <Ederchil> No, you can undelete
[2011-05-01 21:13:56] <KingAragorn> well, the 'policies' we do have are very ad hoc
[2011-05-01 21:14:02] <Morgan> Which brings back the article history and everything?
[2011-05-01 21:14:07] <Ederchil> Which also restores the history.
[2011-05-01 21:14:13] <Morgan> I see, interesting
[2011-05-01 21:14:28] <Ederchil> Well, you can't undelete, admins can.
[2011-05-01 21:14:46] <Hyarion> and if we did have to rewrite the Sheeps article, hopefully it wouldn't take too much work
[2011-05-01 21:15:25] <Morgan> Ok I agree to delete minor articles if I'm someday made into a Admin! :-)
[2011-05-01 21:15:43] <Amroth> Did such thing actually ever happen?
[2011-05-01 21:15:51] <Mith> +I've restored an article before
[2011-05-01 21:15:51] <Ederchil> Hypothetical...
[2011-05-01 21:16:28] <Morgan> Mith - what do you think about the proposal about the policy (as described by me above)?
[2011-05-01 21:18:47] <Amroth> I've to go, sorry.
[2011-05-01 21:19:00] <Morgan> See you, Amroth!
[2011-05-01 21:19:13] <Hyarion> nice chatting with you Amroth
[2011-05-01 21:19:14] <Amroth> Bye all.
[2011-05-01 21:19:20] <Ederchil> Bye
[2011-05-01 21:20:07] <Amroth> PS: Don't forget making a transcript. :P
[2011-05-01 21:20:08] |<-- Amroth has left irc.tolkiengateway.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
[2011-05-01 21:20:08] <Morgan> Ederchil, I take it for granted you stay neutral in this debate? ;-)
[2011-05-01 21:20:34] <Mith> I am almost comfotable with the idea
[2011-05-01 21:20:43] <Ederchil> Yeah, I'm neutral
[2011-05-01 21:20:44] <Mith> However
[2011-05-01 21:20:59] <Mith> We still get to the nitty gritty of what's "special"
[2011-05-01 21:21:25] <Mith> There is a small-c conservatism here in which articles that exist must continue to exist.
[2011-05-01 21:22:20] <Morgan> Yeah, would certainly have to "kill your darlings", as the Swedish expression goes
[2011-05-01 21:22:44] <Mith> I want to make sure that no one is under no illusions as to what the policy is and isn't, and whether articles need to be deleted or not
[2011-05-01 21:22:57] <Morgan> True
[2011-05-01 21:23:38] <Morgan> I only think we should make a "suggestion" here on the meeting. Others, like Sage and Gamling and others, should have a chance to say something about it too (although I suspect they wn't diagree).
[2011-05-01 21:23:57] <Morgan> *won't disagree
[2011-05-01 21:24:43] <Hyarion> agreed.
[2011-05-01 21:26:46] <Morgan> And if other editors don't strongly object to our proposed policy, then I think we can proceed with adding the policy.
[2011-05-01 21:29:02] <Hyarion> especially seeing as we don't even have a policy now, I think we're all on the same page that Morgan's proposal is our best option for the time being.
[2011-05-01 21:30:58] <Morgan> Would there be a new article for this policy, or do we add it to "Tolkien Gateway:Standards"?
[2011-05-01 21:32:36] <Hyarion> I"d just throw it under Standards for now, maybe under a heading about New Articles
[2011-05-01 21:34:39] <Mith> No
[2011-05-01 21:34:45] <Mith> Not New Rticles
[2011-05-01 21:34:57] <Mith> It applies to existing ones too!
[2011-05-01 21:35:40] <Morgan> One more thing: Once the policy is added, I would leave it up to the judgement of the admins to decide if an article should be deleted on the basis of this policy or not. However, perhaps the admins could leave the page with the {{delete}} for a week (or something similar) to allow editors to copy the content to their private wikis, off-line documents, or whatever (since some of us are nuts on collecting everything!)
[2011-05-01 21:37:23] <Hyarion> indeed
[2011-05-01 21:40:45] <Hyarion> well, we might as well wrap this up unless anyone has anything else to add
[2011-05-01 21:41:09] <KingAragorn> nope
[2011-05-01 21:41:10] <Ederchil> Nope
[2011-05-01 21:41:22] <Morgan> Yeah, agree with Mith, it would apply to existing articles too (I think it was just a misunderstanding of Hyarion's proposal - "New Articles" would mean that no such minor articles would exist on TG, i.e., the future situation where the admins would have deleted/transformed to lists all such articles)
[2011-05-01 21:41:25] <KingAragorn> just good luck with the repairs/upgrades!
[2011-05-01 21:41:33] <Morgan> Nope
[2011-05-01 21:42:27] <Hyarion> sounds great
[2011-05-01 21:42:28] <Morgan> Good suggestion, Hyarion! I REALLY have to do the accounting now! TG eats up my life!
[2011-05-01 21:42:49] <Hyarion> Morgan, I figured as much :) I appreciate you taking the time out of your day
[2011-05-01 21:43:09] <Hyarion> have a great weekend everyone!