User talk:Mith/2011: Difference between revisions

From Tolkien Gateway
< User talk:Mith
Latest comment: 3 July 2010 by Mithrennaith in topic Mithbot
(→‎Mithbot: new section)
Line 79: Line 79:


:Done. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 00:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:Done. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 00:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
== Mithbot ==
Sorry, Mith, but your bot has been making errors. It was a good idea to change link to "Took" into links to "Took Family", but where this also resulted in links to "''Firstname'' Took" changing to link to "''Firstname'' Took Family" (which are redlinks) the result was a bit unfortunate. Also, changing links to "Maggot" into links to "Farmer Farmer Maggot" is overdoing it a bit. I have corrected these errors in the article [[Translated names]], but I have no idea where else they may have been made, and not much time to search. Maybe your want your bot to have a go at it? ;-) — [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 01:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:52, 3 July 2010

Mith/2011, welcome!

Hello and welcome to Tolkien Gateway. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and we look forward to your future edits. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Council forums or ask me on my talk page. Keep up the great work! — Hyarion

Happy Birthday

Just wanted to wish you a Happy Birthday! --Hyarion 14:34, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Tom Bombadil

Hey, I was just wondering about your Tom Bombadil edits. In the Fellowship of the Ring he certainly bore the ring, if only for about a minute. Does this not count for ring bearer status? If it doesn't then Deagol should probably be taken out too, as he had it for only a few minutes before being murdered. Ælfwine228 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We actually had a discussion about this some weeks ago, last night I was only enacting changes which were long agreed by other members.
I personally do not see time or physical holding as the crucial deciding factor, but perceived ownership. Tom did not own the Ring, he borrowed it (and in fact he said, "Show me the precious Ring!" rather than "give"); Déagol, on the other hand, clearly was in ownership of the Ring albeit for a brief period - if Déagol did not own the Ring then Sméagol would not have needed to steal it from him. Déagol says "I found this, and I'm going to keep it" (according to Gandalf).
Furthermore, is physical holding or time is to be crucial deciding factor over whether someone is the Ring-bearer, Gandalf should be included also because he held the Ring in his hand.
Also, if Tom were a Ring-bearer why was he never mentioned as being considered - or even that it could be a possibility - for him to take the ship into the West?--Mith 10:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nations

You should take a look at nationstates.net its fun/ I've moved my nation to Arnor, contact me my nation is breragor. Invite anyone you know to join my region also. And how do you get the things on your profile that say like the race you prefer and lore level?

Next Meeting

It is planned that we hold our next meeting on the 5th of April 2009, please inform us if you can attend here.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next Meeting

Sorry to clutter up your talk page, but just informing you about the next meeting. It is planned that we hold our next meeting on Monday the 13th of April 2009, please inform us if you can attend here. Remember that it's on Easter Monday, not Easter Sunday. Thanks!-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  13:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is "we"/"us" and who decides these dates? --Mith 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We" is the community, "us" is me and the community. Me and Ederchil decided about Easter Monday here; I've put the scheduling of the meetings on the agenda.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  23:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't really call it "decided", actually. TBF. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apostrophes

Hello Mith! Since I'm not a native English speaker I'm a bit curious about the correct grammar of, e.g., 1920s/1920's. Initially I wrote "1920s", but Ederchil changed it to 1920's. Is it a question of American English and British English? I happened to watch the film Goodbye, and Good Luck, which featured an old commercial spelling "in the 1920's and 1930's". Are you able to shed any light on the issue? Cheers/--Morgan 22:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did? Far as I can find, it's 1920s in English. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it was a mistake ;-) I checked if I remembered wrong, but going through the revision history of "Books by year", you suggested the "...'s" in the revision as of 11:46, 18 April 2010. What I remembered wrong was that you didn't change it, just added the decades from the earlier year by year. Anyway, I'll google the issue and see what comes up. --Morgan 22:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A google search of "In the 1920's" (I used that sentence since only 1920's also yields the possesive usage) gave 11 900 000 hits. "In the 1920s" gave 47 400 000 hits. This is a method used by some linguists trying to find the most common usage of grammar, but is there a grammatical rule applying to this case?--Morgan 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is what the Guide to Grammar and Style (by Jack Lynch) says: Using an apostrophe to refer to a decade — the 1960's versus the 1960s — is another matter of house style; again, journalists tend to use the apostrophe, and most other publishers don't. I prefer to omit it: refer to the 1960s or the '60s (the apostrophe indicates that "19" has been omitted), not the 1960's or (worse) the '60's. --Morgan 23:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although some would consider it a stylistic issue, strictly it is grammatically incorrect. An apostrophe is used for a) possessive/genitive or b) missing letters; neither case applies to "1920's" - the apostrophe serves no function whatsoever. Certainly in the UK it would be considered very poor style indeed to apostrophise "1920s"; I don't know the style in the USA. That article was annoying me so I had to remove them! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammar

I hope you don't mind that I from time to time ask questions about English grammar and spelling ;-)

If I want to say that something was written in 19XX, at an unknown date, do I say "it was written some time in 1957" or "it was written sometime in 1957"? As far as I understand it, the sentence "it was written sometimes in 1957" is clearly wrong. --Morgan 10:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course I don't mind, I'm happy to help!
You are right, "sometimes" is wrong. I suppose the correct use would be "sometime", if you ask me (definition from CEOD), but that's not to say that "some time" is incorrect; it's one of those occasions (like "can not" and "cannot") in which it all comes down to your personal preference.--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation of interview

Hi Mith! I've translated about a third of the interview by now. Would you mind sending your email to morgan[at]kingtape.se, so I can send you the file? --Morgan 00:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 00:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mithbot

Sorry, Mith, but your bot has been making errors. It was a good idea to change link to "Took" into links to "Took Family", but where this also resulted in links to "Firstname Took" changing to link to "Firstname Took Family" (which are redlinks) the result was a bit unfortunate. Also, changing links to "Maggot" into links to "Farmer Farmer Maggot" is overdoing it a bit. I have corrected these errors in the article Translated names, but I have no idea where else they may have been made, and not much time to search. Maybe your want your bot to have a go at it? ;-) — Mithrennaith 01:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]