- Internal pages:
- External Wikipedia pages:
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
Arda Structural Reference Format
Hi Mithrennaith! I saw that you favour the Arda Structural Reference Format. Some week ago I created the article Structural references, under suggestion from Beregond, not sure if you were aware of it. I'm thinking that we could have a usage for this format here on TG, perhaps. I'm often bothered by the difficulties of giving page references.--Morgan 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I’d prefer to use ASRF format to page references for the most important works, certainly for Hob, LR, and Sil, where the Ardarathorn list is available, Letters, where paragraphs are usually easily counted, and UT, where it may be difficult, but straightforward, and there are too many paginations anyway. I often experience difficulties when I try to use it for HoMe, where there is only really one pagination, if you disregard the DelRey paperbacks that exist only for a few volumes. I have no experience with using ASRF for the small tales or the essays — I would think it would be needed there as well, as there are many paginations for those texts around.
- But the obvious problem is how to get readers to understand it, and get contributors to use it consistently. I tried out a way of using it with links for the quotations on my userpage. Also, ASRF incorporates a list of abbrevations for titles of works and some individual texts, and I always get slightly irritated when people think they need to introduce different new abbreviations. I mean, if I were to start using the citation templates, I would forever be typing LR instead of the names of the templates for individual parts, and PME instead of PM. I think those templates were named (and LR spread over multiple templates) in error. Certainly, it rather prevents me from using them. So we need to consult and proceed on this very carefully. — Mithrennaith 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wide Acceptance
- Now, as far as I can tell, this is a system firmly embedded between "development" and "accessibility". I say this because I don't consider it to be a polished system ready enough for use on this wiki. At the moment, in order for writers/editors and readers/users to use ASRF they both have to laboriously count paragraphs (potentially incorrectly), which is time consuming (this is not withstanding the existence of this, which being something one has to download from a Spanish website, is a huge barrier to usage to English users). Furthermore, as you point out, abbreviations mean different things to different people: when I was looking at this list I noticed, for instance, that "R" is The Road Goes Ever On; to me, that is a ridiculous abbreviation, "R" should surely be Roverandom and "RG" or "RGEO" should be The Road Goes Ever On.
- As far as this wiki is concerned, I actually don't think the abbreviations are necessary, we should continue to list out references in full but add "#42" at the end, for example, for the 42nd paragraph (if we were to use abbreviations like "LR App.A I:114" it would be counter-intuitive and we'd be constantly explaining ourselves). In order to be able to do this, it needs to be an accessible system (even Sociedad Tolkien Española's database still results in users having to hunt in their books for the relevant paragraph) available to everyone, regardless of language, location, knowledge, or book edition.
- I am in the process of creating, therefore, a website (which I hope to integrate into TG with an extension) which is in effect a database. On it you'll be able to enter the paragraph number of any text and it will provide you with the text and/or page reference by edition. What do you think about the idea? I want to use structural referencing here, but I don't think we're ready yet. Any suggestions you have would be much appreciated. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 08:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Meeting - Sunday 5th September
Hi, Mithrennaith! Just a quick message to inform you that we are holding our next Meeting on Sunday, 5th September 2010 at 7pm UTC. Whether you are or aren't able to attend, please sign your name on the here. Hope to see you on Sunday! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Meeting - Sunday 3rd October
Hello Mithrennaith! I notice you often use (and change to) typographical quotes. Although I agree that they look nicer than the plain ", a problem is that it seems like some keyboards don't have them (like mine; do you have them on your keyboard or do you use some command?). Therefore I always just use ". For me, the typographical quotes only show up automatically in Word, but when I write texts in e.g., MS Notes or in the edit window of TG, I only get ". Perhaps this stylistic (grammatical?) matter should be discussed by the editors of TG at some point. --Morgan 00:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- The single typographical quotes ‘’ are on the ‘US international’ keyboard of Windows, under ALT GR-9 and -0, the double ones “” I have to copy from the ‘special symbols’ table application of Windows. I have wanted to propose including them in the diacritics and special signs bar of the edit window for some time, but have shelved that proposal for as long as that bar doesn’t work (as the Java-extension is out-of-order for the time being). But it is irritating that the bar doesn’t work and the Java-extention should really be brought online again. I think I would also like to propose to include single ‹› and double «» angle quotes in the special signs bar. In that case the double ones are available on the ‘US international’ keyboard, under ALT GR-[ and ], but the single ones are not. (In fact the absence of ‹› and “” from the ‘US international’ keyboard irritates me as inconsistent and unnecessary, as they could easily have been provided under the corresponding SHIFT key combinations.) — Mithrennaith 00:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I would be much obliged if you didn't keep blaming bots for multiple links: multiple links are always caused by editors. The only thing the bot does is change links from a redirection page to the page the redirect links too. If editors can't check where their links go that's not the bot's fault; the bot just tidies them up (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). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- ‘Bots are stupid’ is an axiom of computer science, it’s not blaming bots. For the rest, see on Mith’s talk page — Mithrennaith 00:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
Another controversial piece
I noticed that you removed The Ruins of Osgiliath from the page Writings by J.R.R. Tolkien. Would the same go for The Tale of Gondolin (in case it slipped you by when checking the list)? I have read neither of the texts, so it's a bit hard to classify these books.--Morgan 20:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it didn’t slip me by, as that would certainly not go for The Tale of Gondolin, that’s genuine compilation from JRR’s texts (Sil, Fall of Gondolin in BLT, Tuor etc. from UT and various bits here and there). I’ve seen a copy of it with some time to sample it sensibly. As to Ruins, I own the first two of the 1990 booklets, found them in a box of old fanzines and loose papers I bought at a TS auction a few years ago for a song. I also have Alex’ own confirmation that he wrote them all himself (which he also states in the forewords to both booklets I have). It’s unfortunate that these two books of Alex’, both illustrated by Ruth in the same style, and both bound by that obnoxious American whose name I forget in the same size and style of binding, are nearly always mentioned in the same breath, thereby giving the impression that they are the same kind of thing, which they emphatically are not. — Mithrennaith 03:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Yes, unfortunate, but maybe not so surprising since they were printed in a small number of copies and are difficult or expensive to acquire.