Tolkien Gateway

User talk:Mith/2011

(Difference between revisions)
m (Deletion policy: new section)
m (Deletion policy)
Line 367: Line 367:
How do we do when it's not so obvious to remove links to an article suggested for deletion? These internal links are from [ talk pages and similar non-content articles] - do I just remove the <nowiki>[[]]</nowiki>? --[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 11:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
How do we do when it's not so obvious to remove links to an article suggested for deletion? These internal links are from [ talk pages and similar non-content articles] - do I just remove the <nowiki>[[]]</nowiki>? --[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 11:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:When it's not obvious I usually remove the links when/if I decide to delete the page. If you reckon there's no doubt that I will decide to delete something, remove the links for me! --{{User:Mith/sig}} 23:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:06, 12 December 2011

Nuvola apps edu languages.png
Welcome to Mith's talk page.
  • Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page, including a ==Descriptive heading==.
  • You should sign and date your posts by inserting "~~~~" at the end of them.
  • Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply, etc.).
  • I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me about an article), so you may want to watch this page.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page, please continue the discussion there; DO NOT reply here. This is ensure that discussions do not become fragmented over several talk pages.
⇒ Start a new talk topic.


Featured Quotes

So I justw ant to udnerstand, since you deleted our conversation instead of answering my question, why we don't use the "Nominations page" for nominations and why the "History" page is used instead? Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).

The conversation was moved to here. Also in future please end talk page posts with "--~~~~", this will add a timestamp to your comments. Thanks! -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  03:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
As KingAragorn points out - and if you had checked either the article's history or Recent Changes you would see this - I moved our discussion to the talk page as it shouldn't have been cluttering up the archive of featured quotes.
I have already answered your question:
"It [the quote] was on the Nominations page and was moved to the History page when it became the current quote on the homepage. See this edit and this one. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)"
You then preceded to completely ignore what I said and tell me that my response was irrelevant. And now, I shall answer your question again: we did not use the "History" page for nominations - the quote was on the "Nominations" page but was moved to the "History" page when nominations were no longer required as it became the current Featured Quote on the homepage; I had directed you to the two edits which showed this. It is difficult to have a conversation if one of the participants does not read what the other has written. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviosuly the quote was moved to "History" after it was on the "Nominations" page - I understand that. But whay wasn't the other quote on the "Nominations" page used first? That's what I don't udnerstand. Anyways, I'm done. Thanks.Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).

NO. Do not make out that I am not answering your questions: I have answered every question you have asked when you have asked it. You asked me: "So I justw ant to udnerstand why we don't use the "Nominations page" for nominations and why the "History" page is used instead?" I answered that and now you claim that you understood this all along and that I was not answering the question.
I have answered your question twice. Not once, but TWICE. Here is my first answer:
"There are only three other in the nominations queue: the first has two disagrees and an undecided; the second has one agree; and the third has two agrees and an undecided. This had the joint-most agrees whilst being unanimously positive (only one other was unanimously positive but had fewer votes). Although the rules state that we need five votes in favour, so few people were voting that we decided in the meeting to update the quote in order to keep the homepage fresh (the previous quote had been there for 14 months, with no prospect of it being changed). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)"
Here is my second answer:
"I've already answered this question, but I shall again for clarity: the selected quote was a) older, b) received universal agreement and c) was decided by a meeting of seven people. If you didn't like the quote that was chosen you should've voted against it, or else made an effort to attend the meeting: it has been no secret that I have put the need to update Featured Articles and Featured Nominations on the agenda of subsequent meetings. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)"
You either am not reading this or you are trying to wind me up; I'm assuming the latter as I'm sure no individual can be this dense. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You know what they say about assuming...Unsigned comment by breragor (talk • contribs).

No, I don't. Why don't you elaborate on your pointless comment on my talk page? Also, do you accept that I have answered your question? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
One would assume that you actually read the replies people give to your questions? I am right Breragor? -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  12:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"I am right Breragor?" That is not a question. Do you mean "I am right, Breragor" or "am I right, Breragor?"Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
Alas, if only you were so observant to read the answers people give you. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  10:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, an assumption. You're assuming I did not read them in the first place. Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
In that case we can only assume that you are either failing to understand the sentences we are using in our responses or you are purposefully trolling. I should point out that continued trolling is a bannable offence. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  11:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
So getting angry at someone who potentially doesn't understand the responses is okay here? Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
There's no anger here. But I should tell you that you are displaying clear signs of trolling, I've seen it a lot elsewhere on the web. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  10:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Not once did you say you didn't understand. In fact, quite the reverse: you said you did understand but tried to tell me that I was answering the wrong question. E.g. "Yes, but isn't the Tolkien Gateway:Featured quotes/Nominations page where we should be getting the quotes from? That is what I'm referring to." then "Okay, but that's regardless." and finally, "Obviosuly the quote was moved to "History" after it was on the "Nominations" page - I understand that." --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We are having an argument, no one is trolling. Plus, you say it's an offence punishable by banning, yet niether here nor here is "trolling" mentioned. Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).

I'd take you seriously if you would only end you posts with your signature: --~~~~. Thank you for pointing out that trolling is not mentioned in our 5 year old Policy page, Mith is planning to update it, I'm sure he will mention trolling when he does. The Manual of Style has nothing to do with talk page discussions. Furthermore trolling is not accepted across the web (in the same way that spam is not accepted), why would we tolerate it here just because it is not mentioned on an old unspecific policy page? -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  14:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd tolerate it here because this is a very sophisticated website, and despite that page being old, people here like rules and reg.'s to be followed. As you can see, this debate has been entirely about policy for nominating "Featured Quotes." Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
Quote from top of this page: "You should sign and date your posts by inserting "~~~~" at the end of them.". Quote from Tolkien Gateway:Policy: "Sign your posts on talk pages". I don't understand why you continue to fail to sign your posts, considering the effort you went to create a signature; would your continual failure to sign your posts count as a breach of the rules?
And, for the record, I shall be updating our policies to include trolling. This is just a pointless argument now. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 09:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


I remember you were working to include Notes in the Template:References. Did you manage to get it to work, and if so - how does one use it? Thanks! --Morgan 19:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The limitations of the References extension prevent me from implementing it the way I want. At the moment, if you write {{references|{{{1}}}}}, with anything as {{{1}}}, it will display Notes then References as separate headings; to put a note in the page, add 'group="note"' to the reference. E.g. '<ref group="note">This was the year that Faramir's younger sister, Fíriel, was born.</ref> {{references|note}}' (something similar to this is currently in use in Faramir (son of Ondoher)). It's a bit... awkward, but at least it works. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Apportioning Blame

I apologise for ruffling your feathers, but I would be obliged if you would think before leaving misjudged snorters on my talk page.
‘Bots are stupid’ is not blaming bots, it is an observation of fact. Bots only mechanically carry out their instructions, regardless of whether the result they leave is any better than what they found. They are not capable of making intelligent decisions. ‘Computers are stupid’ is the first axiom of computer science.
That is not to say they shouldn’t be used. On balance I appreciate what your bot does, and I think you should keep it up. But in a number of cases the results need cleaning up, and these cases will keep turning up. When I happen to come across such a result, I do so. I always leave an edit summary, and I usually keep edit summaries ‘telegraphically’ short, and so regularly prefer pithy axioms. You are free to expand this one into ‘needed more work than the bot did/could do/could be expected to do’, there’s no call to turn it into me blaming the bot.
However, we need to be aware that there will always be cases where bots don’t/can’t/can’t be expected to do all the work, and cleaning up after them will remain necessary. I’ll do my bit, if I come across an instance, but that’s only incidentally. Although your bot is not the cause of the problem, it makes it stand out — it’s only after it has changed the link to the redirect that the multiple links show up. You are aware that that is a side effect of your bot’s proper work, you know on which rounds you have sent it, so you know where the ‘cleaners up’ need to go. It’s not fair to expect the editors whose work has been changed behind their backs to pick up all responsiblity for cleaning up.
And finally, although you’re correct that editors cause multiple links, you do need to be careful to distinguish which editors. What you posted on my talk page is in itself contradictory. If editors can't check where their links go ..... points the finger at the editors who put the links in the article in the first place. However, they are mostly caused by linking to two originally separate articles and then, at a later date, one of those articles being redirected to the other actually shows they cannot be blamed for putting in what were at the time links to two different articles, what caused the problem is that one of them was later changed into a redirect.
That is why it should be made clear that when someone changes an article into a redirect (or into a disambiguation) the onus is on him to fix all the links that link to the new redirect. The ‘What links here’ tool is provided to make this relatively easy. That your bot cleans up after editors who neglect to do this is only a mopping up operation; and it should not be relied upon to automatically do the work that is necessary after a change into a redirect, for of its nature only part of that work can be done automatically. — Mithrennaith 00:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "stupid" is not a perfect synonym of "unintelligent": stupid has a more derogatory air about it and if directed at a person it is usually with the intention of discrediting or causing offence (e.g. "George Osborne is stupid."). In calling the bot stupid it felt like a dig at me as the person who issues said instructions.
As far as I'm concerned - unless mistakes caused by my own error - the bot always leaves things in a better state than how it found them: I would also prefer a superfluous link going to the right place to a superfluous link going to the wrong place.
I don't consider my statement contradictory: some people do, persistently, link to redirects - which is why I have to go over certain articles again and again, e.g. Frodo Baggins, Quenya and Middle-earth (incidentally, this was the case with Hithaeglir/Misty Mountains) - but most of the problem is caused by people moving/merging articles and not clearing up after themselves. You're preaching to the converted when it comes to "What links here", redirects, etc., unfortunately, it's a difficult policy to enforce as other editors can't be compelled to clean up after themselves. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Amen! (When we’re talking of preaching and converted ...) That is, agreed. — Mithrennaith 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File talk:Auto insurance 4292.jpg‎

You might like to reply to this comment, requring email conforimation to upload files (which only logged in users can do). --  Myrtonos  forum  c   ec  10:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

wiki scripting

Hi there. If I recall correctly you are the writer of some scripts used in this wiki.

I also maintain a personal wiki (Mediawiki) and I discovered some huge mistake. I typed a word wrong in 100 articles and I guess there are better ways than editing all them again manually. I know that you have written such scripts in the past.

DO you have any guidelines for me? Sage 01:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I used a bot (Mithbot) to do many menial tasks automatically (and, with nearly 8,000 edits, Mithbot has saved a lot of work!); the benefit of using a bot (i.e. an account in the bot usergroup) is that its edits don't appear in RecentChanges - or on people's watchlists - and the bot is unaffected by technical constraints of users. The downside to this is that they only do exactly what you tell them to do, so if you give them incorrect instructions they will follow them blindly.
I use DotNetWikiBot: once your bot has the appropriate permissions, all you have to do is edit the botscript.cs file to something like this:-
using System;
using DotNetWikiBot;
class MyBot : Bot 
	public static void Main() 
		Site site = new Site("", "Mithbot", "PASSWORD"); 

		PageList p = new PageList(site);
 		p.FillFromGoogleSearchResults("Frood", 150);
		foreach (Page i in p)
			i.text = i.text.Replace("Frood", "Frodo");
		p.SaveSmoothly(1, "Bot Message: fixed Frood typo", true);


This will basically fill in all instances of "Frood" with "Frodo". In actual fact, it did find one! If Google hasn't cached your website all too well, you might want to try something like this:-
using System;
using DotNetWikiBot;
class MyBot : Bot 
	public static void Main() 
		Site site = new Site("", "Mithbot", "PASSWORD"); 

		PageList p = new PageList(site);
 		p.FillFromSearchResults("baggings", 150);
 		p.Remove("Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/5 September 2010/Transcript");
		foreach (Page i in p)
			i.text = i.text.Replace("Baggings", "Baggins");
		p.SaveSmoothly(1, "Bot Message: fixed Baggings typo", true);


In this example it's the wiki's search results rather than Google's; I'd already checked this particular typo so used p.Remove to exclude the meeting transcript from the list of pages to edit. (The 150 is the number of results to return, by the way.) I think that's all you need to know, really! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to say your link to a diff (title=Tolkien_Gateway:IRC_Trivia&diff=prev&oldid=144132) above has broken. Of course this may just be a consequence of normal change, but in case it’s a true error, I thought you should know. — Mithrennaith 23:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
'Twas the result of normal page deletions (we no longer have a trivia bot so no point retaining the questions), but thanks for being so observant nonetheless! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 23:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary direct link

Do we have (or is it possible to create) a direct link to Wiktionary in the manner of our current [[Wikipedia:X|X]] and {{WP|X}}? Then there's of course always the question if we should favour these particular wiki projects over other... --Morgan 07:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you need an extension for it, but I've seen [[wiktionary:X|X]] and [[wikt:X|X]] on other wikis. We could also make a temple {{Wikt|X}} of course. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 08:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Tolkien as Ederchil points out! See also for other Wikimedia defaults. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 23:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've used the command line now in an article, and it works. :-) --Morgan 20:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New signs

Could you please add the signs Ŋŋ to the insert box? The letter appears in the Qenya Lexicon (and are reproduced in PE17). Thanks! --Morgan 10:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say, "For you, anything." but it seems as if someone else got there first. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Date restructuring

I’m generally in agreement with what you’ve been doing in reorganising the date articles. Unfortunately you seem to have overlooked one fly in the ointment, namely that those articles cover Middle-earth events as well as real world events, and in consequence have been doing actual damage. Our coverage of Middle-earth calendars is a shambles at the moment, but that’s no excuse to make it even worse, by upsetting about the only bit of it that is good, viz. the coverage in the date articles of the events in Arda of which the actual dates, taken mainly from J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix B, are known.

When just over a week ago you nominated 30 February for speedy deletion, I assumed you had had a temporary black-out and had actually not read the article at all before putting up the template, because I couldn’t believe you would not have understood your mistake had you actually read the article. So I summarily removed the deletion template, giving very brief enjoinder to read both the article and J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix D in the edit summary. As the delete nomination did not reappear, nor did any question about it appear on my talk page, I assumed that you had understood.

But now that I’ve seen what you’ve been doing to the date articles in February and March, I’m afraid I was mistaken, and that you seem to have actually no clue why 30 February has a perfectly genuine and proper existence on TG, and that you have been doing the wrong thing with the right intentions. So I very much regret not having put a note on your talk page about 30 February when I removed the deletion template.

The facts of the matter are these:

  1. The date articles actually were set up to fulfill two functions at once: aggregate Tolkien-related events in the primary world by Gregorian Calendar dates, and aggregate events in Tolkien’s secondary world by the calendar dates essentially given in J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix B.
  2. Although in J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix B Tolkien uses the same month names as in the Gregorian Calendar, he is, as he explains in J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix D, not actually using the Gregorian Calender, but applying the Roman month names to the Shire Calendar.
  3. In the Shire Calendar, all the months have 30 days, so there is a 30 February, but no 31 January, March, May, July, August, October or December. There are, however, 5 (in leap years 6) days outside the months:
    1. 2 Yule, before January,
    2. 1 Lithe, Mid-year’s Day(, Overlithe) and 2 Lithe, between June and July, and
    3. 1 Yule, after December.

That the date articles contain both the events on Earth according to the Gregorian calendar and the events in Arda according to the ‘renamed Shire Calendar’ has an important consequence: In organising the date articles and everything that ties in to them, such as month and year calendars, calendar navigation boxes, categories, etc. account must be taken not only of the structure of the Gregorian Calendar, but also of that of the Shire Calendar. That means:

  1. That your persistent campaign to suppress 30 February from the month navigation boxes (and everywhere else) has been misguided and ill-considered. I have reverted all those changes.
  2. That the ordinal calendar date (the running count of days within the year from 1 January) that you use for the sorting order in the category:dates should accomodate both Gregorian and Shire Calendars, so that it is actually wrong to count 29 February as 060 and 1 March as 061, leaving no room for 30 February in between. In your count, starting with 1 January as 001, 2 Yule can be accomodated as 000, so that the ordinal dates already set for January and February need not be changed. But 1 March should be 062, and the subsequent dates following that adjusted accordingly. Also, 4 places should be provided in between June and July for the four Lithedays, and the numbering end with 372 for 1 Yule.

So I hope you will take these facts into account, when you continue with your otherwise very proper and useful revision of date articles. — Mithrennaith 06:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm, no. I wish you'd come to me and asked me about this before instead of undoing my good work.
The reason I'm doing what I'm doing is not because, as you seem to think, I am ill-informed on calendars. The Gregorian calendar dates, as they all are, are to be treated and ordered in exactly that manner; when I have finished sorting all those articles out (slightly hindered by you now) I will be creating an article for each and every Shire calendar date. Then, the appropriate Shire dates - "24 Halimath", "Overlithe", "1 Winterfilthe", etc etc - will be automatically included in the Gregorian dates articles (a la Main Page) to make things a) tidy, b) accurate, c) make the new main page work properly and d) stop this ridiculous situation of things happening on non-Gregorian-dates effectively never existing on this wiki (e.g. Arwen and Aragorn's wedding on Mid-year's day).
What I am doing is not misguided, and - with the amount of work it entails - is not ill-considered. I am not an idiot who doesn't understand calendars. 30 February has no place on this wiki; 30 Solmath does. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear. I am very much afraid that the wiki-principle of ‘being bold’ has done us a serious disservice here, and set us up with quite the wrong ideas about each others intentions. If I had seen any sign that you actually intended hyving off the events in Arda to separate articles in a subsequent phase, I would probably have understood what you were aiming at and have come here before setting out on a which-hunt against the ‘suppression of 30 February’.
But you got me on the wrong foot with your deletion nomination for 30 February. Calling an article that clearly contained sensible information the ‘most pointless article ever’ was not conveying to me the impression that you actually saw that the article had a place in the way Middle-earth dates were until now dealt with on TG — a coherent way, even if open to criticism. Nominating an article for speedy deletion, before moving its sensible content to another article — now I understand that that is the intention, I can also see that that might still easily take another week, or two — was not conveying to me the impression that its content would actually be preserved elsewhere. That is why I saw foolery, rather than a tiny wheel in a well thought-out structure.
That is why I still, and even more, regret not having come here, to your talk page, then and there, when I removed the template. For then we would have had the discussion we should have had before you started out on this project, and before tempers were ruffled. For I must confess I was very angry indeed when writing my previous expose, because I could only see that you were unraveling that bit of coherent structure in dealing with Middle-earth dates and calendars that there was on this wiki, and could not see any sign or statement of another coherent structure replacing it. I do, however, consider that I still assumed good faith and good intentions.
Please understand that from what you were doing — adding an ordinal number in order to make the dates sort properly, tweaking mainly entries in the ‘on Earth’ section of the articles, setting the month navigation to Gregorian needs only, having consulted the meeting on changing the date format, but not on anything else — left me with the impression that you were completely concentrating on the Gregorian side of the date articles, and completely disregarding the Middle-earth side. I see now that I was wrong, but on looking over your userpage again, I see only one rather general statement that, in hindsight, might have made me guess differently about your intentions. I may have missed some statement elsewhere, but the last weeks I’ve been going through the articles and categories on Middle-earth calendars and timelines pretty thoroughly. If I have indeed missed something, I apologise.
But a discussion before embarking on all this still would have been necessary. I do not think calling the way in which TG has dealt with Middle-earth dates until now (b.t.w., it was set up by Hyarion and, I think, Ederchil, I had nothing to do with it) ridiculous is the most constructive thing to say. I can see that it is open to criticism, yes. But it is coherent. And it has a clear basis in the primary sources. Tolkien did not use Afteryule, Solmath, Rethe, etc. in Appendix B. He used January, February, March, etc. But he stated clearly in Appendix D that he used these names not for the Gregorian calendar months, but for the Shire Calendar month. In doing so he set up a system in which 358 days (359 in leap years) have designations also occuring in the Gregorian calendar, in the same order, but not all in a continuous sequence. 7 days have designations that do not exist in the Gregorian calendar, 7 day designation from the Gregorian calendar are not used. And because this system of equivalences is consistently used in the Tale of Years, many readers of Tolkien’s work have taken to using it. And so Hyarion c.s. have used it when implementing the date articles on this wiki. It is open to the criticism, at least, that it is an incomplete equivalence. As Hyarion noted in an edit summary for 30 February, the date was never going to appear on the Main page. However, the date literally appears in Tolkien’s own Tale of Years. In view of that it is not really the most appropriate thing to say that 30 February has no place on this wiki.
Having said that, I do see that there is a good case for preferring a system of complete and continuous equivalences. (Strictly speaking though, that is not possible, as the Númenórean calendars actually have years with two leap days. The second leap day is never going to find a Gregorian equivalent. But as it didn’t occur at all anywhere near the War of the Ring, we can safely ignore it.) But your description of automatically including the appropriate Shire dates in the Gregorian date articles is still open to different interpretations.
  • One could be that 2 Yule is equivalent to 1 January, and the 365 days of the Shire year are then paired with the 365 days of the Gregorian year strictly in order counting from that point (or 366 days; or 365 days in actual ordinary years, and 366 in actual leap years).
  • But one could also take as a starting point the statement in Appendix D that the Shire year (as the Númenórean year) actually started at midwinter, apparently taken by Tolkien as being 22 December (Gregorian), and proceed to count of both calendars from the equivalence of 2 Yule to 22 December.
  • Chronologists would, however, say neither of the two is correct. Instead one should properly calculate for each event the Gregorian date on which it actually occurred, running the Gregorian Calendar backwards to the time of the War of the Ring. (Chronologists would actually use the Julian calendar for running backwards.) As the Gregorian (or Julian) and Númenórean calendars have different leap year rules, that may lead to a different equivalence than 2 Yule to 22 December, or indeed to a different equivalence for dates some years apart. But as we do not have a single synchronous date between Shire (or Númenórean) calendar and Gregorian (or Julian) calendar, not even indirectly, a historical equivalence like this cannot be established.
So, while there may be good reasons to replace the present incomplete equivalence between Middle-earth and Gregorian dates, it isn’t completely clear exactly what complete equivalence should replace it. That fact, and the fact that the way TG deals with Middle-earth dates has structural ramifications, and the fact that Tolkien did actually use the system you want to set aside, make me feel it’s desireable to consult the community about such a change.
I apologise for second guessing you, misinterpreting you, underestimating you and so putting a spanner in your works. I should not have done so. But I think the responsibility remains with you for not having set out your plans in sufficient detail to the community at large.
Now, how do we go from here? My instinct is to reverse my tampering with your improvements to the date articles. But then we should have some further discussion, preferably with more regular editors involved.
(P.S. posting all this was delayed for four hours because of TG’s downtime.) — Mithrennaith 14:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I often tag things for deletion (unfortunately we only have a "speedy deletion" template) as a beacon to say "This change will happen - not right now - but I am notifying you of this now." I'm doing all the Gregorian stuff first then all the Shire stuff will come next - that's probably why it seemed like I didn't have a clue (but, I do - honest!).
I probably haven't been entirely clear on-wiki (although there are hints at it on my user page, the project page and in a couple of talk pages) but I have discussed it pretty thoroughly pre- or post-meeting and I thought everyone knew what I was up to and that everyone was in agreement. I made it clear when I became "Dates Supervisor" I was going to be very hands-on and pro-active in getting it all ship-shape and Bristol fashion. The Dates Project does say "Converting dates in the Gregorian calendar to the various Middle-earth calendars correctly." which implies the removal of 30 February but, admittedly, not the creation of Shire Calendar articles.
The problem with Tolkien's own timeline is that it is open to wild misinterpretation which is exactly what happens on this wiki. Of the three options you give, it's the second one I intend to take. The benefit of a wiki is that we can redirect and signpost these problems relatively easily so I have no qualms with putting to one side Tolkien's own usages.
Apologies accepted. If you feel that it needs raising at the meeting, please put it on the agenda. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me feel that the air has cleared a bit now!
Yes, I would really like to have a good open talk about this, but I don’t know whether the meeting is quite the place for it. I may add it to the agenda though. Point is, Calendars is one of my oldest focus points in Tolkien studies (or Ardalogy, really) - I’ve been thinking, calculating and writing half-finished notes about the proper correspondences between Middle-earth and primary world calendars for thirty years now, so I have a lot of knowledge and ideas about it.
Over the years I have been lurking around TG, sometimes putting my head above the parapet and joining in meetings, I’ve been looking around the chronological articles, and I have seen work, mainly useful, being done on the primary world dates, and on the timelines, but the Middle-earth calendars have been and remained a shambles, with no noticeable sensible work being done about it. I have several times over the last two or three years wanted to start overhauling the whole set of articles dealing with that, but I haven’t found the time for it. Recently, I’ve started to read up on the subject again, with a view to developing something. That’s also why I have been revisting all the articles and categories about Middle-earth calendars recently.
Now I know you are date supervisor, so my (very tentative) plans were, if I would find the time, to develop some outline in my userpages and then come to you (and the rest of the community) for some discussion on it. But I haven’t reached that stage by far yet, so I haven’t said anything.
The problem with the hints here and there (yes, I do remember having read the project page a few times) is not just that they were far too general to read from them what work would actually be going to be done. I simply saw no further signs of anything large being planned ... my bad, I think. But I have also not been in meetings enough, I’ve had months of being virtually off-TG, and earlier this year I had three months of being virtually off-line. So, I wasn’t there when you were made dates supervisor, so didn’t really know what you said about your plans then. Nor what was covered by ‘dates’, though the hints on the project page and your user page were of course at least clear enough to see that Middle-earth calendars did come under it somehow.
And I think I’ve missed all your discussion of this pre- and post-meeting — and the problem of course is that they don’t show in logs or on reports of decisions made. That’s one of the reasons I have, when showing up in meetings, been emphasising that discussions on plans, projects and policies should at least have a place on-wiki were they can be summarised, continued and their outcome be seen and retrieved by all concerned.
I confess I have also been missing the forum, properly working. If that hadn’t suddenly gone bust, I think I would have opened a thread on this topic some time ago, and likewise on some genealogical matters (for example) — another very old focus point of mine. I did find the forum a good place to deal with matters that involve a lot of related articles and need to deal with them coherently; the only place, really, except for project pages, which are not always there where you want them, or dealing with too large an overview.
To practical matters. I think your choice of the 22 December alignment (if I understand you correctly) is sensible for the purposes of TG. But I think there needs to be a careful explanation of the other possible alignments, and also of the ‘Appendix B nomenclature’ and its defects, for of course it is not a proper alignment at all, but still it is there. It still is what the readers will find in the book itself, and what fans are using all over, so I think we simply cannot afford as the serious Tolkien wiki to simply ignore it. Maybe we might need a (subfusc) template on Gregorian date articles stating something like:
If you are looking for the date in Middle-earth, designated in The Lord of the Rings as 22 September, you should go to 22 Halimath
and turn 30 February into a redirect. But you will no doubt have developed ideas on that as well, so we need to discuss that, and may come up with something different in seeking consensus.
We maybe also need an ordinary deletion template, next to a speed deletion template.
And now I will go about reverting my tampering with your changes to dates in February and March (including 23 March that you missed), and also in February and Calendar. — Mithrennaith 23:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. — Mithrennaith 01:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, Shambles is adequate word and that's why I wanted to sort it as a matter of priority. And yep you understand my intentions correctly and yep I shall have a disambiguating sentence along those lines. Wherever you want to debate the issue I'm happy to discuss it. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

remove real name

Would you please remove my real name from and and the URL using my name? I wrote that program in high school and it has unfortunately become the first Google result. I am a lawyer and it is not very professional. Thank you.

That would be an issue of editorial self-censorship which I don't really feel I have the authority to enact myself. This information is in the public domain - and obviously isn't factually inaccurate - but I shall add it to a meeting agenda for us to decide, nonetheless. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Something to consider is also if should have articles on non-licensed, non-commercial computer games at all. It's almost like we would start having articles about fanfiction stories and fanfic authors.--Morgan 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the place for this discussion, Morgan. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I wasn't intending to start a discussion here, Mith, but in any case the forum isn't working - where should we have discussions? --Morgan 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, why put it here (as this is for discussions with me)? You can still create Forum discussions (all that's broken is the dynamic page list of topics), or you can put it on the discussion for the meeting? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories in alphabetical order

Should categories always be put manually in alphabetical order? --Morgan 12:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no official policy on this - although perhaps there should be - but I've always done it as I think it helps the reader (if you look at the categories of Smaug, for instance, I think it looks nice to see them in alphabetical order). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to remember it. ;-) --Morgan 12:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New signs 2

Hi Mith! Would you mind adding the breve signs? Ăă Ĕĕ Ĭĭ Ŏŏ Ŭŭ - And why not also the inverted breve while you're at it: Ȃȃ Ȇȇ Ȋȋ Ȏȏ Ȗȗ Thank you! --Morgan 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot job

Is your bot able to relink the instances of Nírnaeth Arnoediad to Nirnaeth Arnoediad? Cheers / --Morgan 18:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Has it been decided which name we prefer? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I posed my question on the talk page on June 24, and no one has had any opinions. I guess that it's more conventional to use the name as it appears in The Silmarillion.--Morgan 18:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If not responding to talk pages is criteria for action, I guess I should try to sneak through talk page comments at 5am to get what I want. I'll do this later. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
?--Morgan 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
"?"? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you appear to want to know: the "?" derives from a) my impression that your comment seemed a bit unnecessarily rude and b) that I find it hard to interpret what you're saying.
"If not responding to talk pages is criteria for action," What kind of action are you referring to? My action of moving the article, or my suggestion that you should use your bot to change the redirects? Or just an action (on TG) in general? Both trivial and non-trivial?
"... I guess I should try to sneak through talk page comments at 5am to get what I want." Do you think I was too hasty on moving the article, or are you just making a general remark? If I am the only one after three weeks who has an opinion in the matter, why is it so controversial to move an article to its more commonly known name?
"I'll do this later." Do you mean after a certain time? Is it because you don't have time right now, or because you think we need to ponder more about the pro's and con's? Or do you want to wait until more people have signed? Should we do this for all trivial moves? Or was this not a trivial move? You just leave me confused!
(Perhaps I should mention for the record that, IIRC, the reason why I originally asked the question on the talk page was that I had a hard time actually finding the article - I think I searched for "Nirnaeth", and didn't find it).--Morgan 23:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. Yes. If you feel you don't need talk page approval, why not just move the article in the first place? The fact that nobody answered doesn't mean nobody disagrees: in the past I've come across things months later and thought "This isn't right. I can't believe I haven't seen this before." You are right about this particular article but isn't it a slightly questionable philosophy?
  2. General (slightly cynical) remark. (See 1.)
  3. Because I didn't have time to do it yesterday. If a move is trivial it doesn't need talk page chat.
How do you want me to bot this? Do you want links to "Nírnaeth Arnoediad" changed to "[[Nirnaeth Arnoediad]]" or "[[Nirnaeth Arnoediad|Nírnaeth Arnoediad]]". I expect you'll say the former, but just checking. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 08:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, the former is better, I would say. Concerning 1: I do agree that it's not a good philosophy for non-trivial actions (or actions you suspect could be controversial). But sometimes it can be hard to know what's what, and then you look for some input on a talk page.--Morgan 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 09:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I could use the help o a bot to fix the redirects of alternative names of the Moon.--Morgan 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. What do you want changing? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The pages which link to Ithil, Ránar, and Isil should have these internal links to be redirected to Moon#Other names.--Morgan 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. For future jobs can you create a new section at the bottom of my talk page? Thanks! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

New signs 3

Hi, could you add , already thanks! --Amroth 18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ederchil for adding the symbol.
Can you or Ederchil please add the symbols: ę , ƿ , ȳ , , ø̃, ɛ̃, ɔ . Thanks! --Amroth 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Why would we need those? -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
+1 to Ederchil's question. Thanks for doing this on my behalf, Ederchil. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Finn and Hengest. --Amroth 11:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
ȳ and ƿ are already on the list. I've added the rest. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Mith. --Amroth 14:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You're very welcome! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind adding š to the insert box? The letter appears in, for example, some Valarin names. Thanks /--Morgan 08:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently my talk page is being monitored so I have not been allowed to help you. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Could you please add Haerast to Index:Locations? Perhaps also Far Shore, I'll leave it up to your discretion.--Morgan 00:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The redlink Haerest (appearing in the Index:Locations) appears to be a misspelling (did some quick searches), so I think you could safely substitute that for Haerast.--Morgan 00:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please add Sindanórie‎ to Index:Locations? You might also want to check if someone has replied to Talk:Sindanórie‎. --Morgan 08:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


Sorry about the misspelled ""! I thought that it would automatically yield a capital S as in "Sandbox", but I was wrong. You learn from your mistakes! --Morgan 19:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ISBN/ASIN in Template:Book

Hi Mith. I've sometimes added the ASIN code to publications lacking an ISBN. However, in the new Template:Book, the ASIN code turns up strange (as I've always made a WP link explaining what ASIN is). Example: The Hobbit 50th Anniversary. Would you know how to fix this (or should we skip giving ASIN codes?)? --Morgan 19:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I know I spoke to you about this in chat, but for the sake of anyone else wondering, I think the ASIN shouldn't be used as it's a "commercial" referencing system, only relevant to one online shop. I would suggest a LCCN (Library of Congress Control Number) as the only other standard referencing system; the problem with that is that it is only really used as a reference in the US - little used or understood by us Europeans - which I feel is inappropriate for global publications initially released in the UK. I don't think it's a massive problem and I think we can just leave out any reference marker altogether. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot job: Eru

Hi Mith. Would it be tricky to program your bot to relink "Eru" to "Ilúvatar", or should I do it manually? I've sorted the double redirects. Thanks, --Morgan 19:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. You hasn't quite got all the double redirects, though! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion policy

How do we do when it's not so obvious to remove links to an article suggested for deletion? These internal links are from talk pages and similar non-content articles - do I just remove the [[]]? --Morgan 11:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

When it's not obvious I usually remove the links when/if I decide to delete the page. If you reckon there's no doubt that I will decide to delete something, remove the links for me! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 23:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)