Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/5 December 2010/Transcript

< Tolkien Gateway:Meetings | 5 December 2010
Revision as of 12:32, 2 July 2012 by KingAragorn Bot (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

[20.48:20] <Mith> Meeting commenced at 20.47 GMT. Attendees, KingAragorn, Mith, Theoden1, Ederchil, Eldarion, Hyarion, Morgan, Sage and Tar-Telperien.
[20.48:21] <Ederchil> Mith has the floor: What is to be done about the Hobbit films?
[20.48:29] <Ederchil> great.
[20.48:55] <Mith> Agenda is located here: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien_Gateway:Meetings/5_December_2010
[20.49:32] <Mith> Skipping the first two items as Hyarion is currently absent, the first item to address it the Hobbit films.
[20.49:43] <Ederchil> what about them?
[20.50:35] <Mith> I think we really need to big up The Hobbit films (and related articles) as a way of improving TG's profile.
[20.50:46] <Ederchil> agreed
[20.50:57] <Ederchil> what of our current article on "Film Two"?
[20.51:00] <Ederchil> merge?
[20.51:35] <Mith> I think so, because we don't yet know the name of either
[20.51:55] <Mith> "Film Two" is a bit of a cop-out
[20.52:24] <Tar-Telperien> so
[20.52:35] <Tar-Telperien> is The Hobbit ever actually getting made, or what?
[20.52:41] <Ederchil> yes
[20.52:43] <Ederchil> finally
[20.52:47] <Ederchil> I hope
[20.52:56] <Mith> Although it's not very well structured (and not quite up-to-date), Wikipedia has an exhaustive description of development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_films
[20.53:14] <Ederchil> let's steal and rewrite it...
[20.53:21] <Mith> They start filming in February, apparently
[20.53:30] <Mith> Do we have to steal?! I hate stealing!
[20.53:46] <Ederchil> borrow
[20.53:47] <Mith> They should be stealing frmo us, this is our whole area of expertise.
[20.53:52] <Ederchil> better?
[20.54:14] <Ederchil> I mean "take the text and use it as the framework for expansion"
[20.54:35] <Mith> I suppose so, although it could be a bit obvious
[20.54:36] <Eldarion> if not steal/borrow where take the infos from?
[20.54:50] <Mith> Do we need a "Hobbit films project"?
[20.55:07] <Ederchil> probably.
[20.55:27] <Sage> guys i think the common licenses allow us to steal from wikipedia, or not?
[20.55:29] <Mith> Over the next 2 years I'd like to get relevant articles on the homepage
[20.55:43] <Ederchil> more or less. but let's rewrite it for the shape
[20.56:09] <Mith> Well, they do but it requires acknowledgement.
[20.56:34] <Mith> In any case, I think it's... unsporting.
[20.56:47] <Ederchil> frame work
[20.56:47] <Mith> And a bit... sloppy on our part
[20.56:54] <Ederchil> so we do most of the work ourself
[20.58:06] <Mith> That seems reasonable enough - should the aim be to make it an FA?
[20.58:27] <Ederchil> by the time it comes out, or earlier?
[20.58:46] <Ederchil> there's not much to say about plot until we've seen it
[20.59:34] <Mith> Indeed, it would also be good to get other articles like Smaug, Lonely Mountain, Thorin, etc. etc. similarly well-written
[20.59:56] <Mith> People are going to start wanting to know all about them.
[21.01:46] <Mith> How about, then, I create a "Hobbit Project" for all of this
[21.02:24] <Ederchil> okay
[21.02:25] <Eldarion> sounds good
[21.02:29] <Sage> right
[21.02:31] <Mith> And put it in Community Portal as a particularly important task to be done
[21.03:14] <Eldarion> yeah
[21.04:00] <KingAragorn> hello!
[21.04:14] <Mith> KingAragorn, as I live and breath!
[21.05:07] <Eldarion> hello
[21.05:15] <Mith> Do you need time to catch up on, or comment about, the above?
[21.05:44] <Mith> We were just talking about focussing on Hobbit-related article in light of films
[21.07:56] <KingAragorn> I see has nothing else on the agenda been discussed?
[21.08:07] <Mith> No, Hyarion, is not here
[21.08:09] <Ederchil> Hyarion's missing
[21.08:54] <Mith> As Morgan Freeman isn't here, should we do a standard on Hobbit articles now? Ederchil...
[21.09:21] <Ederchil> basically, my problems:
[21.09:27] <Ederchil> maiden name or married name?
[21.09:31] <Ederchil> sr or ta?
[21.09:47] <KingAragorn> "Allowing admins to update Main Page " - what does this mean? I thought they could?
[21.09:56] <Ederchil> Isembras III Took or Isembras Took III
[21.10:38] <Mith> We'll come back to that, KA.
[21.11:02] <Ederchil> I don't like "Tolman Cotton Senior" either
[21.11:29] <Mith> I personally think, that it should maiden name, SR (save for the half-dozen very important ones) and Isembras Took III
[21.11:53] <Ederchil> Lobelia Bracegirdle?
[21.11:59] <Ederchil> noone knows her
[21.12:11] <Ederchil> Rosie Gamgee?
[21.12:18] <Ederchil> noone knows here either
[21.12:53] <Mith> I was about to offer up "Belladonna Baggins"
[21.13:13] <Ederchil> even better
[21.13:22] <Mith> Yes, when I was thinking about this, Lobelia was the one sticking point to the rule
[21.13:30] <Ederchil> Maybe we could do this on a case-by case basis
[21.13:34] <Sage> can there be a template for SR?
[21.13:40] <Ederchil> there is
[21.13:44] <Sage> for example S.R. 1
[21.13:45] <Ederchil> a very good one, too
[21.13:52] <Sage> and it creates Third Age 1601?
[21.13:56] <Ederchil> yes
[21.14:00] <Sage> great
[21.14:00] <Mith> Took me a while to make that. It automatically converts SR dates to TA
[21.14:01] <Ederchil> no, 3001
[21.14:10] <Mith> And Fouth Age, too
[21.14:13] <Ederchil> 3201, even
[21.14:19] <Ederchil> or FoA
[21.14:29] <Sage> great
[21.14:46] <Mith> What do other people think about maiden names?
[21.14:56] <Sage> i second mith, only that i'd prefer a married surname
[21.15:13] <Ederchil> well, most of them only appear in the familytrees, under their maiden names...
[21.15:32] <Eldarion> i'd use the more common name and decide on a casy-by-case basis
[21.15:55] <Mith> And I'd prefer maiden names always...
[21.16:35] <Ederchil> I also prefer "Farmer Cotton" over "Tolman Cotton Senior"
[21.20:11] <Sage> well
[21.20:18] <Ederchil> anyone?
[21.20:41] <KingAragorn> maiden names makes more sense for Hobbits
[21.21:15] <Ederchil> I'm still in favor for case-by-case
[21.21:31] <Eldarion> me too
[21.21:47] <Sage> what is case by case?
[21.22:19] <Ederchil> we check per hobbit, which woud be the best known
[21.22:34] <Ederchil> Lobelia Sackville-Baggins vs Lobelia Bracegirdle
[21.22:45] <Ederchil> Belladonna Baggins vs Belladonna Took
[21.23:14] <Mith> I would usually support this on my belief of "Articles should always go under their most common soubriquet" rule, but, as far as I can tell, the only sticking point is Lobelia
[21.23:36] <Ederchil> more or less, yeah
[21.23:41] <Mith> Save for Lobelia, all are known by maiden names anyway
[21.23:47] <Ederchil> she's love it that we make an exception for her
[21.24:12] <Ederchil> not all, there's a couple. Linda Proudfoot
[21.24:13] <Sage> let's go by maiden names :D
[21.24:17] <Ederchil> rather than Linda Baggins
[21.24:31] <Ederchil> I'd say maiden names except lobelia
[21.25:22] <Mith> OK, I'm willing to go along with that as a compromise
[21.25:23] <Eldarion> yes, maiden name if it is the best known
[21.25:43] <Ederchil> which it is in all cases except lobelia
[21.26:45] <Mith> KingAragorn, any thoughts?
[21.27:46] <KingAragorn> obviously if they are more famous for their married names then go for that
[21.28:23] <Mith> OK, I think that amounts to a decision
[21.28:25] <Ederchil> brb
[21.29:32] <Mith> What about dates, everyone? SR or TA/FoA? My preference is SR save for the important hobbits whose history overlaps too greatly with the wider world's, but I think both TA and SR should be listed
[21.29:58] <Eldarion> yes, totally agree
[21.31:47] <Sage> I prefer SR
[21.32:50] <Ederchil> sr already links to the Ta Foa dates
[21.33:15] <Eldarion> without exceptions?
[21.34:12] <Sage> I agree that hobbits who left the Shire should have TA
[21.34:28] <Ederchil> agreed
[21.35:42] <Eldarion> so we all agree on sr except for frodo, sam,...?
[21.35:50] <Ederchil> yes
[21.35:53] <Mith> Well, for visual purposes it might be useful to have both SR and TA?
[21.36:19] <Sage> perhaps a midfication of the SR template
[21.36:23] <Ederchil> maybe only in the first few instances, and then go to SR/TA only
[21.36:46] <Mith> Oh absolutely, it would be silly on all dates
[21.37:00] <Ederchil> because reading "SR 23434 (TA 23425235)" is jarring
[21.37:05] <Mith> Just birth/death/ship-taking and
[21.37:18] <Mith> a couple of other important ones, perhaps
[21.37:30] <Mith> It would be the height of tedium, otherwise!
[21.37:35] <Sage> please take a look here http://en.mystlore.com/wiki/Gehn
[21.37:54] <Sage> the "born" thing
[21.38:11] <Ederchil> <sup>? could work
[21.38:19] <Ederchil> could work
[21.38:25] <Sage> or here http://en.mystlore.com/wiki/Anna
[21.40:28] <Ederchil> but only for the birth death thing in the template and intro
[21.41:20] <Eldarion> yes, it would be too long for main text
[21.44:28] <Sage> anything else?
[21.44:58] <Ederchil> Move Tolman Cotton Senior to Farmer Cotton?
[21.45:12] <Sage> yes
[21.45:27] <Mith> Yes
[21.45:55] <Ederchil> add non-canon/adaptations hobbits to their surname category? Like Fastred Burrows or Everard Proudfoot?
[21.46:41] <Sage> what is surname category?
[21.46:47] <Sage> ah
[21.47:00] <Ederchil> http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Category:Baggins
[21.47:01] |<-- Tar-Telperien has left irc.tolkiengateway.net (Quit: People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.)
[21.47:25] <Sage> i would be against that
[21.49:40] <Mith> As would I
[21.50:00] <Ederchil> okay.
[21.51:36] <Ederchil> that answers all my hobbit related questions
[21.51:39] <Eldarion> okay
[21.51:58] <Mith> What of the Thains?
[21.52:07] <Ederchil> you mean numbering?
[21.52:11] <Mith> Yeah
[21.52:29] <Ederchil> I personally think Whatsit IV Took looks ugly
[21.52:40] <Ederchil> As does, btw "Wilcome II Cotton"
[21.52:58] <Sage> i don't mind that but if you prefer Cotton II, i'd go with that
[21.53:08] <Ederchil> Ponto II Baggins
[21.53:29] <Eldarion> i think number should come at the end
[21.53:42] <Mith> So do I
[21.53:46] <Mith> As with monarchs
[21.53:53] <Eldarion> yes
[21.54:52] <Ederchil> okay. next point?
[21.55:50] <Eldarion> allowing admins to update fa/fq
[21.55:52] <Eldarion> ?!
[21.56:02] <Ederchil> can't we already do that?
[21.56:21] <Eldarion> yes, i also thought so
[21.56:48] <Eldarion> what did you mean, mith?
[21.57:17] <Mith> Yes, but I think we should have permission to unilaterally update it - so few people participate in FA and FQ the main page is effectively paralysed
[21.57:39] <Ederchil> oh. yes, agree. we could do with a new one
[21.57:59] <Ederchil> what happened to the whole FQ debate from the last meeting, btw?
[21.58:43] <Mith> I don't know, I was unable to attend
[21.58:59] <Mith> I would like to be able to change the main page on - AT LEAST - a monthly basis
[21.59:11] <Ederchil> we'd nominate a 52 or so quotes and rotate them
[21.59:25] <Mith> We need to keep things fresh. A stale main page looks like a stale website
[21.59:35] <Ederchil> agreed
[21.59:38] <Mith> So would that be the same 52 every year?
[21.59:56] <Ederchil> no, a year later we think of new ones
[22.00:01] <Eldarion> if we can vote on the next 52, we could have new ones
[22.00:33] <Mith> Sure, but people don't participate in the current votes
[22.00:53] <Ederchil> I'll think of a few in the next week
[22.01:54] <Eldarion> wouldn't it be sufficient if collect 52 and at least everyone of us votes on them
[22.02:42] <Ederchil> 60 in case a couple get rejected
[22.02:55] <Mith> Alright, let's go for that
[22.03:00] <Mith> And FA?
[22.03:25] <Eldarion> yes
[22.03:31] <Mith> FA is more tricky as our standards could change/article's quality could change/facts could change, rendering a FA in January no longer worthy be December
[22.04:11] <Eldarion> is it realistic that something like that could happen?
[22.04:29] <Mith> Well, if it's Hobbit films, very much so
[22.04:41] <Eldarion> i don't think that articles change that quickly, unfortunately
[22.04:47] <Mith> Or any Hobbity articles re. portrayal in adaptations
[22.04:51] <Eldarion> yeah, that's right
[22.05:16] <Mith> And you never know what publications might pop up, either
[22.05:26] <Mith> We didn't know about CH 12 months before it came out.
[22.05:54] <Mith> I would much rather people got involved!
[22.06:19] <Eldarion> hm, yes of course, but it doesn't seem to work
[22.06:29] <Sage> about what?
[22.06:30] <--| Sage has left #wiki
[22.06:46] -->| Sage (Paladin@TG-198F6A7A.on3.ontelecoms.gr) has joined #wiki
[22.06:52] <Sage> oops
[22.07:07] <Mith> What do you mean, "About what"?
[22.07:24] <Sage> involved
[22.07:39] <Mith> Involved in Featured Article nominations
[22.07:54] <Sage> oh
[22.08:09] <Sage> i'll do my best
[22.09:23] <Eldarion> hm, gandalf is already elected,isn't it?
[22.09:40] <Ederchil> yes.
[22.09:41] <Mith> OK, well, can we agree that admins are allowed to update these sections of the Main Page if there are a lack of nominees?
[22.09:57] <Ederchil> i'd say yes
[22.09:58] <Mith> I think it is. (Although I don't think it's worthy.)
[22.10:02] <Ederchil> but i'm biased
[22.10:11] <Mith> I'd say yes, but I'm biased!
[22.10:26] <Ederchil> Gandalf needs sources
[22.10:34] <Mith> It needs a LOT of sources
[22.10:36] <Eldarion> yes, i agree because there is a good reason why they are admins
[22.10:53] <Eldarion> hm
[22.12:20] <Eldarion> so why don't we have other/better nominees?
[22.12:32] <Ederchil> Gondor?
[22.13:17] <Eldarion> i mean with complete references
[22.13:45] <Ederchil> Lalia Clayhanger ;0
[22.14:51] <Eldarion> ok^^
[22.15:04] <Ederchil> needs a picture, though ;(
[22.15:24] <Eldarion> i mean, we have two nominees but both need better referencing
[22.16:07] <Mith> Argh! It's the problem with every article
[22.16:23] <Mith> I keep searching for articles and I'm hitting the same brick wall every time
[22.16:30] <Ederchil> Arvedui
[22.16:42] <Eldarion> yes, referencing isn't the most interesting work
[22.17:03] <Ederchil> Eärnur
[22.17:07] <Ederchil> Aranarth
[22.19:26] <Mith> Éomer is reasonably referenced, but is a mess
[22.19:56] <Ederchil> still needs a better image
[22.20:50] <Eldarion> why a mess?
[22.21:28] <Ederchil> images are too large
[22.21:52] <Mith> And it's not sectioned very well
[22.21:58] <Mith> Minas Tirith's not bad
[22.22:12] <Eldarion> but that can be changed quickly
[22.22:50] <Ederchil> the Fonstad reference needs to go, though
[22.22:57] <Ederchil> and PiA needs to be expanded
[22.23:06] <Sage> what is pia?
[22.23:13] <Mith> Denethor's not bad
[22.23:15] <Ederchil> Portrayal in Adaptations
[22.24:47] <Mith> Rose Cotton is pretty good
[22.24:52] <Eldarion> okay, gandalf and gondor still need references, so let's find one or two other nominees (maybe one of the ones you named)
[22.25:09] <Mith> That was your doing, wasn't it, Ederchil?
[22.25:19] <Eldarion> while in the meantime maybe someone fixes gandalf and gondor
[22.25:19] <Mith> I don't need to look at the history to guess that was you
[22.25:40] <Ederchil> yes, I did Rosie
[22.25:51] <Ederchil> that came out wrong
[22.26:19] <Ederchil> Fourth Age dates need to be checked though
[22.26:50] <Mith> I have a hunch I might have checked them myself
[22.27:51] <Mith> I remember doing something with the dates, at least
[22.29:02] <Ederchil> needs more PiA images
[22.29:55] <Ederchil> guys, I'm off, I have some stuff to do
[22.30:06] |<-- Ederchil has left irc.tolkiengateway.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
[22.30:47] <Eldarion> so what do we do with fa?
[22.31:16] <Mith> I imagine Ederchil and I will find some good ones
[22.31:23] <Mith> Or anyone, of course
[22.31:28] <Eldarion> okay
[22.31:31] <Mith> We should all make an effort to vote on existing ones
[22.31:40] <Eldarion> but we don't use gandalf or gondor at the moment
[22.31:48] <Mith> No, neither are good enough right now
[22.31:52] <Eldarion> because of the poor referencing?!
[22.32:04] <Eldarion> okay, so we choose one or two other
[22.32:09] <Eldarion> or you choose
[22.32:29] <Mith> I'll see hwat I can rustle up.
[22.32:30] <Eldarion> sounds reasonable
[22.32:42] <Eldarion> and we all try to vote on them ;)
[22.32:52] <Mith> Yeah, cool, cool!
[22.33:45] <Mith> I don't think we can continue with the meeting as Hyarion and Morgan aren't here
[22.33:51] <Eldarion> i think i could start collecting some quotes this week
[22.33:55] <Eldarion> yes
[22.34:20] <Eldarion> agree
[22.35:32] <Mith> OK, I'm winding this meeting up and the discussion on language articles cna be carried over in the forum as Sage helpfully made a topic on it today.
[22.35:47] <Mith> If Hyarion comes online later I'll send round an update.
[22.36:12] <Eldarion> does the forum work again?
[22.36:29] <Mith> Not properly, but you can still view the topics in Recent Changes
[22.36:43] <Mith> You cna create forum topics but the forum page won't list them
[22.36:47] <Eldarion> alright