Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/3 July 2011/Transcript

Jul 03 12:04:34 <KingElessar> Right, let's start. Welcome to Tolkien Gateway's July meeting. Amroth, Hyarion, KingElessar, Mith, and Morgan are all present.
Jul 03 12:04:45 <KingElessar> First up is Morgan with "Concepts only mentioned in Unfinished Tales (like Eryn Vorn) - are these to be considered non-canon (or having a "lower" place in a canon grade)?"
Jul 03 12:05:33 * Amroth is looking at the agenda
Jul 03 12:05:37 <Morgan> Hm, yes
Jul 03 12:05:45 <KingElessar>
Jul 03 12:05:52 * KingElessar is now known as KingAragorn
Jul 03 12:06:04 <Morgan> That's better!
Jul 03 12:06:19 <Amroth> +1 to Morgan
Jul 03 12:07:45 <Morgan> Alright, the topic touches a bit on the general non-canon/canon discussions we've had (how to best denote canonical status - just on/off or some kind of scale).
Jul 03 12:08:01 <Morgan> I remember Mith has discussed this at length with Mithrennaith - did you reach some kind of consensus?
Jul 03 12:08:26 <KingAragorn> I think it should be considered canon unless it's contradicted in 'more canon' sources
Jul 03 12:08:42 <Amroth> I agree with KingAragorn
Jul 03 12:08:51 <Mith> I too, agree
Jul 03 12:09:09 <Mith> Which is the same approach we take to THOME, isn't it?
Jul 03 12:09:17 <Morgan> yep
Jul 03 12:09:22 <Amroth> I suppose so
Jul 03 12:10:22 <Morgan> So non-canon is that which is contradicted in canonical sources?
Jul 03 12:10:23 <KingAragorn> The issue of canonicity and canon scale has been discussed at length on the forums
Jul 03 12:10:34 <KingAragorn> I don't know if we want to open that all up now
Jul 03 12:10:41 <Mith> No
Jul 03 12:10:53 <Mith> And I think we have an agreement on UT anyway?
Jul 03 12:10:59 <Morgan> yeah, that wasn't my intention - I was more looking for a guideline (which I have now)
Jul 03 12:11:10 <Amroth> I think some non-canon texts are non-canon, even if they aren't contradicted by canonical sources.
Jul 03 12:11:48 <KingAragorn> No doubt we'll come back to this issue at some point, but for now shall we move on?
Jul 03 12:11:56 <Morgan> sure
Jul 03 12:12:11 <Amroth> yep
Jul 03 12:12:12 <KingAragorn> Now up is Mith with "Singular/plural article names policy (warning: I prefer singular). "
Jul 03 12:12:32 <Mith> Exactly what it says on the tin
Jul 03 12:12:43 <Morgan> Maybe you could expand why you prefer singular
Jul 03 12:13:01 <Mith> The reason I prefer singular is simply for linking. And I'll use the example Hobbits
Jul 03 12:13:36 <Mith> If we have the article "Hobbits", to link to Hobbit I have to type Hobbit and to link Hobbits I do Hobbits
Jul 03 12:13:55 <Mith> Whereas, if the article is "Hobbit", I can do Hobbit and Hobbits. Simples!
Jul 03 12:14:19 <Mith> Furthermore
Jul 03 12:14:20 <Amroth> I personally like plural.
Jul 03 12:14:23 <Morgan> Is that why WP has singular article names?
Jul 03 12:14:32 <Mith> Morgan: I believe so
Jul 03 12:14:36 <Mith> Furthemore!
Jul 03 12:15:00 <Mith> With lists, e.g. "Kings of Rohan", the VAST MAJORITY of links are referring to a "King of Rohan"
Jul 03 12:15:18 <Mith> But we inconveniently have the article in the plural
Jul 03 12:15:40 <Ainaldo> as opposed to Hobbits. And having a convention will make it easier to guess an article name.
Jul 03 12:16:57 <Morgan> Amroth, is it only a personal preference, or do you have some argument? Hyarion, what do you think?
Jul 03 12:17:27 <Morgan>
Jul 03 12:17:38 <Morgan> just to see what the arguments are
Jul 03 12:17:45 <Amroth> What would we do with "List of Songs"-articles?
Jul 03 12:18:03 <KingAragorn> Well that policy is for exceptions to their rule
Jul 03 12:18:21 <KingAragorn> Index:Songs
Jul 03 12:18:29 <KingAragorn> ;)
Jul 03 12:18:31 <Amroth> Wouldn't it be better if we are consistents then?
Jul 03 12:18:34 <Mith> Well we're not going to have stupid titles to force a singular
Jul 03 12:18:35 <Hyarion> I tend to prefer plural, but am fine with either usage.
Jul 03 12:18:39 <KingAragorn> But, there are obviously some exceptions
Jul 03 12:19:04 <Amroth> I prefer plural aswell.
Jul 03 12:19:22 <KingAragorn> To be honest we could just adopt Wikipedia's policy?
Jul 03 12:19:40 <Ainaldo> I think the Wikipedia policy is quite well wrought.
Jul 03 12:19:54 <Morgan> There is also the Category naming
Jul 03 12:20:10 <Mith> That's because the Wikipedia policy is sensible and ours is not
Jul 03 12:20:32 <Morgan> The discussion page of the wp article (above) notes that the category names are often in plural
Jul 03 12:20:51 <KingAragorn> Categories list things, so will quite often be plural
Jul 03 12:21:21 <Amroth> I don't like article names that are singular, but that's a personal preference.
Jul 03 12:21:45 <KingAragorn> 'Apple' would look strange - but that's another argument!
Jul 03 12:21:51 <Morgan> We do, of course, have to consider the huge job of changing all article names!
Jul 03 12:21:58 <Amroth> +1 to LA
Jul 03 12:22:07 <Amroth> and Morgan
Jul 03 12:22:28 <Mith> They don't look strange on WP
Jul 03 12:22:41 <Mith> And it's not like we have to change all the articles tomorrow
Jul 03 12:22:50 <KingAragorn> ^
Jul 03 12:22:50 <Mith> Can I also point out we are already inconsistent
Jul 03 12:22:50 <Amroth> but "Plant in Middle-earth" looks strange.
Jul 03 12:22:52 <Morgan> I guess it's mostly a habit thing, we could as easily get used to singular titles
Jul 03 12:23:01 <KingAragorn> Amroth, that's a list
Jul 03 12:23:03 <Mith> Where there is one known thing we already have it in the singular
Jul 03 12:23:10 <KingAragorn> So would be an exception
Jul 03 12:23:13 <Mith> Amroth: lists aren't included.
Jul 03 12:23:35 <Mith> So for instance we have "King of Rhovanion" yet "Kings of Gondor".
Jul 03 12:24:45 <KingAragorn> Yes, "King of Gondor" would be s a concept article and "Kings of Gondor" would be a list
Jul 03 12:24:52 <Amroth> Would this also include Noldo/Noldor?
Jul 03 12:25:17 <Amroth> Also, how are they listed in the silmarillion and other indexes?
Jul 03 12:25:50 <Mith> I don't know. The length of this discussion has made me lose enthusiasm for defending the proposal
Jul 03 12:26:21 <Mith> If we want to go back over previous areas, the indexes don't have entires on apples
Jul 03 12:26:34 <Amroth> I'll look in the Sil index, if you don't mind.
Jul 03 12:27:26 <Mith> the indexes list King of in singular
Jul 03 12:27:52 <Morgan> How paper publications organize information is not really valid in this discussion
Jul 03 12:27:57 <Amroth> Noldor as plural
Jul 03 12:28:17 <Amroth> and Elves aswell.
Jul 03 12:28:18 <Mith> +1 to Morgan
Jul 03 12:28:25 <Mith> Can we just make a decision, please
Jul 03 12:28:35 <Mith> This really isn't a big issue
Jul 03 12:28:46 * mithrennaith ([email protected]) has joined #wiki
Jul 03 12:28:54 <KingAragorn> I think there will be a lot of exceptions, but surely these are obvious?
Jul 03 12:28:55 Mith mithrennaith
Jul 03 12:28:57 <Hyarion> hello mithrennaith
Jul 03 12:29:05 <KingAragorn> Good evening mithrennaith
Jul 03 12:29:05 <Amroth> hello Mithrennait
Jul 03 12:29:10 <mithrennaith> Hello!
Jul 03 12:29:10 <Mith> Yes, they are
Jul 03 12:29:12 <Amroth> Mithrennaith*
Jul 03 12:29:44 <KingAragorn> Perhaps we should come back to this at a later time
Jul 03 12:29:54 <KingAragorn> We're not going to agree
Jul 03 12:30:08 <mithrennaith> What are we on?
Jul 03 12:30:20 <Amroth> Plural VS Singular
Jul 03 12:30:24 <KingAragorn> Mith's "Singular/plural article names policy (warning: I prefer singular)."
Jul 03 12:30:31 <Ainaldo> I'm about to run off; I'd just like to interject that I have received approval from Chris Guerette to create a layer on with his map.
Jul 03 12:30:50 <KingAragorn> That's great news Ainaldo!
Jul 03 12:31:24 <Amroth> Personally I favour plural, but I don't mind to be outvoted.
Jul 03 12:31:35 <Mith> I vote Singular
Jul 03 12:31:59 <mithrennaith> Great news indeed, Ainaldo!
Jul 03 12:32:08 <Amroth> Good news, Ainaldo
Jul 03 12:32:13 <KingAragorn> I vote singular (and by definition, the obvious plural exceptions)
Jul 03 12:32:36 <mithrennaith> I am not convinced of the need or the appropriateness of singular names.
Jul 03 12:33:06 <Morgan> Maybe Mith could restate the arguments?
Jul 03 12:33:41 <Mith> If everyone were on time, I wouldn't have to.
Jul 03 12:33:49 <Ainaldo> a.) with a convention, it is easier to guess the name of an article
Jul 03 12:33:50 <Mith> The reason I prefer singular is simply for linking. And I'll use the example Hobbits.
Jul 03 12:33:57 <KingAragorn> hehe
Jul 03 12:34:00 <Morgan> (or someone else, I can't copy+paste in Bersirc)
Jul 03 12:34:04 <Mith> If we have the article "Hobbits", to link to Hobbit I have to type Hobbit and to link Hobbits I do Hobbits. Whereas, if the article is "Hobbit", I can do Hobbit and Hobbits. Simples!
Jul 03 12:34:08 <mithrennaith> Apologies - just home from a meeting of Unquendor.
Jul 03 12:34:21 <Mith> With lists, e.g. "Kings of Rohan", the VAST MAJORITY of links are referring to a "King of Rohan", but we inconveniently have the article in the plural
Jul 03 12:34:26 <Mith>
Jul 03 12:34:27 <Ainaldo> b.) with singular, [Name]s and [Name] are links, versus with plural [Names] and [Names|Name]
Jul 03 12:34:48 <Ainaldo> c.) Singular is Wikipedia's policy, in general
Jul 03 12:34:58 <mithrennaith> I know the wp convention, yes.
Jul 03 12:35:03 <Mith> Can I also point out we are already inconsistent: where there is one known thing we already have it in the singular. So for instance we have "King of Rhovanion" yet "Kings of Gondor".
Jul 03 12:35:10 <mithrennaith> And this is a practical advantage.
Jul 03 12:35:26 <Ainaldo> (b) is the most compelling reason to me
Jul 03 12:35:45 <KingAragorn> ^
Jul 03 12:36:00 <Ainaldo> Particularly since the wiki software treats [Name]s as a link with the label "Names", which is nice and unexpected.
Jul 03 12:36:16 <Hyarion> To me it just makes sense for the article to be plural if it is about multiple subjects, if I'm reading an article titled "King of Rhovanion" I expect it to be about a single king, where as if I'm reading an article titled "Kings of Gondor" I expect it to be about all the kings of Gondor.
Jul 03 12:36:28 <Amroth> +1 for Hyarion
Jul 03 12:36:52 <mithrennaith> That is my reason to feel uncomfortable with singular also.
Jul 03 12:36:56 <Ainaldo> That's compatible, I think. Category pages in plural.
Jul 03 12:36:57 <KingAragorn> King of Gondor is a concept, Kings of Gondor is a list
Jul 03 12:37:05 <KingAragorn> We could have both!
Jul 03 12:37:15 <Ainaldo> I concur.
Jul 03 12:37:19 <Amroth> and some articles wouldn't really sound good (in my opinion), for example: Apple or Noldo
Jul 03 12:37:43 <KingAragorn> I think the exceptions are blindingly obvious
Jul 03 12:37:48 <KingAragorn> It would remain Noldor
Jul 03 12:37:49 <Mith> So do I
Jul 03 12:37:53 <Ainaldo> And the Wikipedia policy notes that, if there is no sensible interpretation of the term in singular, as in "pant" or "scissor", you use the plural.
Jul 03 12:38:01 <Amroth> Wouldn't we spread information on to many articles?
Jul 03 12:38:06 <mithrennaith> In my view there are nuances.
Jul 03 12:38:07 <Mith> No
Jul 03 12:38:07 * Amroth never expected to say that
Jul 03 12:38:14 <Mith> This is perfectly straight forward!
Jul 03 12:38:49 <KingAragorn> Shall we vote or postpone discussion?
Jul 03 12:38:52 <mithrennaith> With a title like King of Gondor, while there are -historically- many kings, still the title itself is applicable only to one person at a time.
Jul 03 12:39:04 <Mith> It affects a few articles in the grand scheme of things and, as editors, will make our lives easier and have no impact on the reader! I can't see what there is to oppose.
Jul 03 12:39:30 <Mith> Can we please just vote on this now. We've spent half on hour on this triviality; I wish I hadn't brought it up.
Jul 03 12:39:30 <mithrennaith> I have no problems with an introduction to the article ‘King of Gondor’ saying ‘King of Gondor’ was a title ...
Jul 03 12:39:38 <Mith> Vote.
Jul 03 12:39:48 <KingAragorn> All in favour say Aye.
Jul 03 12:39:49 <KingAragorn> Aye
Jul 03 12:39:52 <Mith> AYE
Jul 03 12:39:54 <Ainaldo> Aye
Jul 03 12:39:55 <Amroth> Nay
Jul 03 12:39:58 <Morgan> Aye
Jul 03 12:40:06 <mithrennaith> Whereas with people, even Hobbits or Men, I don’t feel comfortable with saying ‘a Hobbit was ...’
Jul 03 12:40:15 <mithrennaith> nay
Jul 03 12:40:21 <Hyarion> Nay
Jul 03 12:40:40 <Morgan> (although I don't think we should democratically decide this)
Jul 03 12:40:40 <KingAragorn> 4-3, the motion passes
Jul 03 12:40:53 * Amroth hopes that Gamling or Ederchil joins to make it a draw
Jul 03 12:42:08 <KingAragorn> That's democracy huh
Jul 03 12:42:09 <KingAragorn> OK
Jul 03 12:42:24 <mithrennaith> Wiki is not a democracy, though ...
Jul 03 12:42:25 <KingAragorn> Next is Mith with "Whether multiple names need to be redirected."
Jul 03 12:42:38 <KingAragorn> And Morgan's extension of "And if redirected, what guideline should we have for putting these redirects in categories."
Jul 03 12:42:47 <Amroth> yes, and constitiunal laws need a 2/3 majorty :P
Jul 03 12:42:48 <KingAragorn> We're probably the most democratic wiki there is
Jul 03 12:42:56 <KingAragorn> Not in my coutnry
Jul 03 12:42:57 <Morgan> :)
Jul 03 12:42:59 <KingAragorn> *country
Jul 03 12:43:03 <Mith> Nor my country
Jul 03 12:43:23 <mithrennaith> That’s the way with unwritten constitutions, yes.
Jul 03 12:43:36 <Mith> I don't think we need to discuss this too much
Jul 03 12:43:41 <Morgan> Mith, your topic entails a doubt about the value of redirects?
Jul 03 12:43:43 <mithrennaith> Agreed,
Jul 03 12:43:51 <Mith> No
Jul 03 12:44:02 <Mith> I place super value in redirects
Jul 03 12:44:08 <Mith> I think everything should be merged into one article
Jul 03 12:44:22 <Amroth> I don't think so.
Jul 03 12:44:24 <KingAragorn> I agree with Mith
Jul 03 12:44:29 <Mith> And I was of the impression most people thought that
Jul 03 12:44:44 <Morgan> So the question was more like "Wether multiple names should be merged into one article"?
Jul 03 12:44:44 <mithrennaith> I think this is a matter of applying a modicum of good sense.
Jul 03 12:44:51 <Hyarion> names should redirect with the exception of Sindarin/Quenya/etc. names.
Jul 03 12:45:04 <Amroth> agree with Hyarion
Jul 03 12:45:17 <KingAragorn> I don't think we need to discuss it much here. It has been discussed at length on talk pages (i.e. Moria)
Jul 03 12:45:24 <mithrennaith> The first point of common sense is that you want to have the information on one subject together in one article --
Jul 03 12:45:46 <mithrennaith> -- and that you don’t want the same information repeated in many places --
Jul 03 12:45:48 <Mith> +1 KA
Jul 03 12:46:11 <mithrennaith> -- so that it gets slightly different each time, and corrections do not reach all places.
Jul 03 12:46:20 <KingAragorn> mithrennaith makes an excellent case
Jul 03 12:46:30 <mithrennaith> So principle one: redirect multiple names to one article.
Jul 03 12:46:38 <Morgan> No, this is a big change for TG, so it's important to discuss
Jul 03 12:46:49 <mithrennaith> But then a second point comes in:
Jul 03 12:46:53 <Amroth> Morgan is right.
Jul 03 12:47:17 <mithrennaith> If we have a project of having a lot of articles of a given type --
Jul 03 12:47:24 <mithrennaith> -- such as say Eldarin words --
Jul 03 12:47:48 <mithrennaith> -- some of these are going to be names of subjects that have other primary names. --
Jul 03 12:47:50 <Hyarion> I don't think anyone has ever been of the opinion to include information about Gandalf in the Olorin article, it's whether to keep Olorin for the etymology content.
Jul 03 12:48:16 <mithrennaith> -- and still, there are good reasons to want to keep linguïstic articles to one format. --
Jul 03 12:48:21 <KingAragorn> But the point is all information in the Olorin article should be in the Gandalf article
Jul 03 12:48:28 <KingAragorn> And thus should redirect to it
Jul 03 12:48:33 <Hyarion> If we have articles for Quenya/Sindarin names, then there is no reason to merge Olorin into Gandalf imho.
Jul 03 12:48:49 <Amroth> +1 to Hyarion
Jul 03 12:48:57 <mithrennaith> -- It is awkward, to say the least, to have to direct certain words to an etymology section in a larger article --
Jul 03 12:48:57 <Hyarion> my point was that repeating of information is not a problem as Olorin will not have information about Gandalf.
Jul 03 12:49:22 <mithrennaith> -- that can’t conform to the specific format of a ‘dictionary style’ article.
Jul 03 12:49:23 <Mith> If we have Olorin redirect to Gandalf, we have no reason to double up information in two separate articles.
Jul 03 12:49:26 <KingAragorn> But Gandalf should include all the information on the Olorin page, this it would be in two articles
Jul 03 12:49:32 <KingAragorn> *thus
Jul 03 12:49:38 <mithrennaith> So on ‘dictionary style’ I’m with Hyarion.
Jul 03 12:50:10 <Amroth> Joins the dictionary style-club.
Jul 03 12:50:24 <mithrennaith> I think a good case can be made for the Gandalf article to include the fact that Gandalf is, or in a certain aspect of his being was, also called Olorin --
Jul 03 12:50:45 <mithrennaith> but for the etymology of that name to be directed to a linguïstic article.
Jul 03 12:50:45 <Hyarion> of course, I think the way it is setup now works great.
Jul 03 12:51:11 <Hyarion> Gandalf lists Olorin as a name, and Olorin is kept separate for its etymology content.
Jul 03 12:51:37 <Mith> The reason for an encyclopedia - the whole point of them - is to put a lot of information in one place
Jul 03 12:51:43 <mithrennaith> On the other hand, I see no good reason to force the articles on the Quenya names of the Tengwar to be separated from the dictionary style articles on the words.
Jul 03 12:51:52 <Mith> The reason for a wiki - the whole point of them - is to make it easy for us to do that.
Jul 03 12:52:00 <Hyarion> If we want to scrub all the Quenya/Sindarin words from the wiki then merging Olorin with Gandalf is only logical, but since we have an article for each Quenya/Sindarin/etc. word then we need to keep it.
Jul 03 12:52:13 <KingAragorn> I'm not convinced that this information should be spread out. If you type "Olorin' in search you should get Gandalf and find information on Olorin in the appropriate section
Jul 03 12:52:16 <Morgan> Well, I've started to remove them ;)
Jul 03 12:52:16 <Mith> You can have etymologies for Olórin or Mithrandir or Tharkun or whatever in the Other Names sections
Jul 03 12:52:50 <Amroth> etymologies about Olórin don't go about Gandalf.
Jul 03 12:52:52 <mithrennaith> The whole point is that those tengwa names are those same words with that meaning, and chosen as a name for the tengwa because they begin with the sound denoted by the tengwa.--
Jul 03 12:53:01 <Mith> Olorin is another name for Gandalf
Jul 03 12:53:21 <Mith> So the information on Olorin goes with Gandalf. Simples
Jul 03 12:53:23 <mithrennaith> -- so it just becomes an additional dictionary gloss of the word.
Jul 03 12:53:45 <Amroth> If I I want to search information about Olorin I will search for Olorin, for Gandalf I would search for Gandalf.
Jul 03 12:53:49 <mithrennaith> Whereas Gandalf is not just a dictionary gloss for Olorin - it is a whole encyclopedic subject.
Jul 03 12:54:02 <Mith> You make it sound so easy, Amroth
Jul 03 12:54:07 <KingAragorn> Two mountains currently equates to 6 articles: Caradhras, and Baraz; Fanuidhol, Cloudyhead, Bundushathûr, and Shathûr.
Jul 03 12:54:29 <Mith> But for many concepts a Sindarin and English name may be much closer in notability
Jul 03 12:54:29 <mithrennaith> That is inconsistent, and just plain silly.
Jul 03 12:54:34 <KingAragorn> Not very easy for the reader to understand
Jul 03 12:54:47 <Mith> E.g. Imladris and Rivendell
Jul 03 12:55:33 <Morgan> A problem with having multiple articles on the same (basic) concept is that new editors will keep adding info to whatever they find first, either Imladris or Rivendell
Jul 03 12:55:36 <mithrennaith> Main encyclopedic article under Rivendell, etymology and other linguïstic matter concerning Imladris(t) under Imladris.
Jul 03 12:55:57 <Mith> Morgan: we all watch Recentchanges, we can wacth that
Jul 03 12:56:12 <Mith> If we rejected policies on the baiss new editors would ignore them we would have no policies at all
Jul 03 12:56:26 <mithrennaith> One should realise, even new editors, that wiki has a sophisticated structure of linking for a purpose.
Jul 03 12:56:35 <Mith> So if someone searched for Imladris looking for Rivendell
Jul 03 12:56:45 <Mith> We've delayed them getting to their destination
Jul 03 12:57:00 <Hyarion> why are they searching for Imladris?
Jul 03 12:57:18 <KingAragorn> Why not?
Jul 03 12:57:19 <Hyarion> They most likely primarily wish to know if it is the same place as Rivendell, or they may want to know what the word means.
Jul 03 12:57:56 <mithrennaith> If the article on Gandalf says that Gandalf is also called Olorin, and links to Olorin for the etymology of that word, reasonable people should understand that you don’t need to add all that linguïstic information again to the Gandalf article.
Jul 03 12:57:57 <Hyarion> likewise if someone searches Olorin, they most likely aren't looking to know Gandalf's history, they want to know what the word means or if it was associated with Gandalf, the current structure answers that.
Jul 03 12:58:03 <Mith> And that can all be covered in one place!
Jul 03 12:58:17 <Mith> Convenient for the reader, convenient for the editor
Jul 03 12:58:52 <mithrennaith> No, because that presents people looking up the linguïstic information with widely differently styled articles --
Jul 03 12:59:15 <Hyarion> this is one of the main benefits TG has over Wikipedia, I think this would be a mistake to try to lump everything together like Wikipedia does.
Jul 03 12:59:36 <Hyarion> Search Wikipedia for Olorin and you're redirected to the Gandalf page and forced to hunt through the entire article to try to find the meaning
Jul 03 12:59:42 <mithrennaith> -- and that is a sure way of making new editors even more likely to do the wrong thing in the wrong place, because they can’t see the logic behind it.
Jul 03 12:59:43 <Morgan> yeah, mithrennaith has a point there - especially when there are many names for something, like Gandalf, Orcs, etc
Jul 03 12:59:48 <Amroth> And one of the benefits that convinved me to join TG.
Jul 03 12:59:57 <Mith> It's not a hunt!
Jul 03 13:00:41 <KingAragorn> I'm still not convinced. If you're looking for linguistic information you're going to know the main name of the article (character, concept or whatever) and go to the etymology section. I wouldn't want to go the that section and then find the information was elsewhere.
Jul 03 13:01:23 <KingAragorn> Wouldn't and don't
Jul 03 13:01:35 <Hyarion> so you would type in Gandalf to look up the linguistic information of Olorin?
Jul 03 13:02:18 <mithrennaith> that’s the weak point in that argument.
Jul 03 13:02:23 <KingAragorn> Yes, or Olorin - which would redirect to Gandalf and the right section!
Jul 03 13:02:31 <Mith> +1! KA
Jul 03 13:02:36 <Hyarion> I think the two options are keep it the way we've been doing it or separate the dictionary words into their own namespace.
Jul 03 13:03:06 <Hyarion> I'd really rather not have to mess with a separate namespace
Jul 03 13:03:15 <Mith> Namespacw?!
Jul 03 13:03:18 <Mith> Where did this come from
Jul 03 13:03:21 <Amroth> I agree again with Hyarion
Jul 03 13:03:38 <mithrennaith> I’m with Hyarion on this - if we can’t filter out the necessary and sufficient grounds for having separate articles with their own raison d’etre, --
Jul 03 13:04:02 <Mith> Ye
Jul 03 13:04:03 <Mith> Alright
Jul 03 13:04:04 <mithrennaith> -- we will have to separate all the dictionary-style matter out to our own wiktonary.
Jul 03 13:04:12 <Mith> We get that you don't like it
Jul 03 13:04:16 <KingAragorn> OK, I can see that if we vote it will be a draw (unless Ainaldo comes back and chips in)
Jul 03 13:04:49 <Mith> We can come back next month where Ederchil will vote in favour of the change.
Jul 03 13:04:56 <Hyarion> lol.
Jul 03 13:05:36 <KingAragorn> OK, let's postpone it.
Jul 03 13:05:46 <mithrennaith> I think this is not a matter of having a majority one way one month and the other way the next.
Jul 03 13:05:53 <mithrennaith> That is the path to destruction.
Jul 03 13:05:58 <Amroth> yes
Jul 03 13:06:01 <Mith> (He will, he's a self-confessed redirectionist.)
Jul 03 13:06:04 <Hyarion> agreed, I hardly think such a time consuming decision should be concluded on the matter of a single vote...
Jul 03 13:06:16 <Mith> Hang on a sec
Jul 03 13:06:22 <Hyarion> likewise with the last vote.
Jul 03 13:06:25 <Mith> The current decision was decided by no vote at all
Jul 03 13:06:26 <KingAragorn> I hate democracy too
Jul 03 13:06:30 <mithrennaith> This is a matter for sensible thought, well reasoned arguments, and a comfortable level of consensus.
Jul 03 13:06:35 <KingAragorn> Always leads to destruction
Jul 03 13:06:58 <mithrennaith> ;)
Jul 03 13:07:36 <Morgan> Hyarion, you should be more despotic!
Jul 03 13:07:51 <mithrennaith> btw. at the moment I see Hyarion, Amroth, Morgan and meself on one side and Mith and KA on the other.
Jul 03 13:07:57 <mithrennaith> Or have I missed something?
Jul 03 13:08:04 <Morgan> I'm sort in between
Jul 03 13:08:06 <Morgan> *of
Jul 03 13:08:27 <Amroth> So then it's 3-2-1.
Jul 03 13:08:33 <Mith> can we move on
Jul 03 13:08:38 <mithrennaith> And don’t forget that Sage has been helping out on the dictionary articles quite a bit and will also have an opinion.
Jul 03 13:08:44 <Mith> If we're postponing why are we still talkign abotu this
Jul 03 13:08:48 <KingAragorn> Next up is Mith with "Discuss this:"
Jul 03 13:08:49 <Hyarion> might as well vote, last decision was based on one vote :p
Jul 03 13:09:04 <mithrennaith> I think we should present the arguments onwiki (on redirects).
Jul 03 13:09:43 <Morgan> +1 onwiki
Jul 03 13:10:10 <Hyarion> agreed.
Jul 03 13:10:16 <Amroth> agrees
Jul 03 13:10:21 <KingAragorn> OK
Jul 03 13:10:26 <KingAragorn> What about this lawyer
Jul 03 13:10:38 <mithrennaith> Place: forum, make a dictionary project page, or sub to the meeting page, or talk of a projected policy?
Jul 03 13:10:40 <KingAragorn> If we name him here it would defeat the purpose
Jul 03 13:10:44 <KingAragorn> Forum
Jul 03 13:10:45 <Mith> Just do it in the forum
Jul 03 13:10:47 <Mith> Christ
Jul 03 13:10:50 <mithrennaith> good.
Jul 03 13:11:00 <mithrennaith> Lawyer.
Jul 03 13:11:06 <Morgan> I say: remove all game articles which aren't licensed - easy and logical
Jul 03 13:11:17 <Amroth> I don't agree with that.
Jul 03 13:11:20 <Morgan> (that way he will get his will through as well)
Jul 03 13:11:34 <Amroth> That would also mean we should remove Hunt for Gollum, etc.
Jul 03 13:11:35 <Mith> I disagree with that
Jul 03 13:11:45 <Mith> +1 Amroth's point
Jul 03 13:11:53 <Amroth> Since the hunt is uncommerical, unofficial aswell.
Jul 03 13:11:54 <mithrennaith> +1 as well.
Jul 03 13:12:01 <Amroth> Aswell as much more.
Jul 03 13:12:45 <Morgan> So where should we draw the line?
Jul 03 13:12:45 <mithrennaith> I think the criterium of being licenced is not compatible with the aim of maintaining an encyclopedia of relevant information.
Jul 03 13:13:11 <Hyarion> My concern is the smaller lesser known games, film adaptations, etc. are sometimes just as interesting from a fandom perspective, and if TG does not preserve the information I'm afraid there's a good chance the information will be lost permanently.
Jul 03 13:13:13 <Morgan> WHy articles on home-made computer games by high school kids from the 1980s?
Jul 03 13:13:33 <Morgan> They gotta have some notability
Jul 03 13:13:35 <Amroth> because it was our policy!
Jul 03 13:13:37 <Mith> Morgan: because that's our job
Jul 03 13:13:57 <mithrennaith> agree with Mith on that.
Jul 03 13:14:01 <Morgan> So should we make articles for all fanon Grelvish words as well?
Jul 03 13:14:12 <Morgan> Where
Jul 03 13:14:13 <Amroth> no
Jul 03 13:14:22 <Morgan> 's the conceptual difference?
Jul 03 13:14:23 <Amroth> multiple forums
Jul 03 13:14:30 <Hyarion> no I think creating a game in the 80's took more effort than coining a word.
Jul 03 13:14:42 <Amroth> I'll search the links for you, if you want.
Jul 03 13:14:51 <mithrennaith> Even though I dislike Grelvish, we do at least to pay attention to its existence.
Jul 03 13:14:52 <Morgan> Well, it
Jul 03 13:15:12 <Morgan> s' not really an important issue for me
Jul 03 13:15:17 <mithrennaith> Point is, I think this is tricky.
Jul 03 13:15:30 <Amroth>
Jul 03 13:16:27 <mithrennaith> On the one hand, I’m all for freedom of information. This guy made this game, the information that he did so has become public, so it is a fact of free knowledge in this specialism, and it is true.
Jul 03 13:16:43 <mithrennaith> Also, I don’t think it can in all honesty be called defamatory.
Jul 03 13:17:13 <KingAragorn> I personally don't think it will look unprofessional
Jul 03 13:17:15 <mithrennaith> On the other hand, as a kid he signed with a ‘keyboard nickname’, and not with his real name.
Jul 03 13:17:21 <Hyarion> I think in the stance of removing information by request, we need to take the same stance as Google in that we are always willing to immediately remove anything if required by law.
Jul 03 13:18:01 <mithrennaith> Now, many years later and in a different career, I can see reason in his wish not to be associated with that nickname anymore.
Jul 03 13:18:08 <mithrennaith> Still, it is true and good info.
Jul 03 13:18:25 <Amroth> If I remember correctly he also added his real name.
Jul 03 13:18:26 <mithrennaith> I agree with Hyarion on stance 100%
Jul 03 13:18:45 <mithrennaith> But I don’t think there can be a legal requirement here.
Jul 03 13:18:56 <mithrennaith> Still the guy could make a stink.
Jul 03 13:19:59 <Amroth> He is mentioned as Quin B.
Jul 03 13:20:34 <mithrennaith> In the actual game software or documentation, or only on online lists of Tolkien-related games?
Jul 03 13:20:44 <Amroth> actually game software
Jul 03 13:20:50 <Amroth> in one of the files.
Jul 03 13:20:54 <mithrennaith> Then he has no leg to stand on.
Jul 03 13:21:53 <KingAragorn> I think we should have articles for unlicensed games, but articles on people associated really aren't necessary, surely?
Jul 03 13:22:05 <Hyarion> agreed.
Jul 03 13:22:19 <mithrennaith> tentatively agreed, too.
Jul 03 13:22:58 <mithrennaith> I mean, I wouldn’t like to have an absolute no to those, when a designer has become notable in itself.
Jul 03 13:23:26 <KingAragorn> OK, so should we remove the article about the game creator as requested?
Jul 03 13:23:57 <mithrennaith> But I can live with the idea that there is no good reason to have an article on someone when the only reason is he wrote one game program that we do have reason to include.
Jul 03 13:24:24 <KingAragorn> Amroth, what do you think?
Jul 03 13:24:53 <Amroth> I agree somewhat.
Jul 03 13:25:14 <Morgan> Ok, good, let's move on
Jul 03 13:25:23 <mithrennaith> On the other hand, we do have a presumption that we want articles for translators, for people who wrote books on Tolkien&c or who received one or two letters (known).
Jul 03 13:25:53 <mithrennaith> But I think in this case it is politic to remove the article on the guy.
Jul 03 13:26:12 <Amroth> So we remove people's names when they request it?
Jul 03 13:26:31 <Hyarion> no no
Jul 03 13:26:40 <mithrennaith> No, certainly not as a matter of course.
Jul 03 13:26:41 <KingAragorn> Under such circumstances yes, but not simply to everyone
Jul 03 13:26:57 <Hyarion> no I don't think even if they request it
Jul 03 13:26:58 <mithrennaith> In this case he is on borderline notability for our purposes as it is.
Jul 03 13:27:13 <Hyarion> I think the fact that he isn't notable is the only reason we're removing, disregarding the request.
Jul 03 13:27:53 <Morgan> Which is a good reason, IMHO
Jul 03 13:27:59 <KingAragorn> OK, so we're deleting the article.
Jul 03 13:28:03 <mithrennaith> But I don’t think we would be right to remove an article on, say, Douglas Kane (also a lawyer), or Carl Hostetter (a notorious p.i.t.a.) even if they asked.
Jul 03 13:28:25 <Hyarion> agreed.
Jul 03 13:28:25 <Amroth> another thing, would we remove his name at the article itslelf?
Jul 03 13:28:28 <Amroth> itself*
Jul 03 13:28:31 <mithrennaith> no.
Jul 03 13:28:32 <Hyarion> no
Jul 03 13:28:45 <KingAragorn> OK, let's move on
Jul 03 13:28:55 <KingAragorn> Next is me/Mith with: "Mith has suggested that Tolkien Gateway should become a charity. The community should approve or disapprove of the suggestion, and arrange a special meeting to flesh out the idea."
Jul 03 13:29:00 <Amroth> then I'm fine with it.
Jul 03 13:29:28 <mithrennaith> Do you have a few hours to discuss this?
Jul 03 13:29:39 <Morgan> :)
Jul 03 13:29:42 <Amroth> I have to go in a few minutes?
Jul 03 13:29:49 <Amroth> drop the ?
Jul 03 13:29:50 <Hyarion> question?
Jul 03 13:29:51 <Hyarion> :)
Jul 03 13:30:00 <Hyarion> I am Ron Burgundy?
Jul 03 13:30:20 <mithrennaith> In a nutshell: --
Jul 03 13:30:32 <KingAragorn> OK, tonight we should decide whether we should consider it further
Jul 03 13:30:41 <mithrennaith> -- I think Mith is thinking from the concept of Charity under UK law.
Jul 03 13:30:51 <mithrennaith> That concept is rather specific. --
Jul 03 13:30:52 <Amroth> Could somebody first give a bit of explanation about this.
Jul 03 13:31:06 * Hyarion pokes Mith
Jul 03 13:31:23 <Amroth> I still don't know enough about this to have an opinion.
Jul 03 13:31:24 <mithrennaith> -- I have no idea whether US law (under which Hyarion lives and operates the site) has a similar concept.
Jul 03 13:31:51 <Morgan> The idea is that TG is tied to one person, namely Hyarion. If Hyarion disappears (physically or mentally), TG dies.
Jul 03 13:31:58 <mithrennaith> -- I do know, from experience with the TS, that the demands of the Charity Commissioners --
Jul 03 13:32:27 <Mith> Under both UK and US law chairities can be created for wikis under education purposes
Jul 03 13:32:30 <mithrennaith> -- are incompatible with e.g. the basic democratic minimum rules that Dutch law demands of a Dutch voluntary society.
Jul 03 13:32:47 <Mith> HOWEVER, under UK law if you have a turnover under £5,000 you do not have to register with the Charity Commission
Jul 03 13:32:50 <Amroth> what would be pros or cons of it.
Jul 03 13:32:56 <mithrennaith> Ah!
Jul 03 13:33:23 <Amroth> what would change that for TG?
Jul 03 13:34:16 <mithrennaith> My point is, when the continuity of an entity responsible for the existence and operation of TG is the issue --
Jul 03 13:34:46 <mithrennaith> -- the only reason that the concept of charity should be brought up here, --
Jul 03 13:35:49 <mithrennaith> -- is the basic inability or unwillingness of UK law (and maybe US law), to deal with the concept of ‘legal personality’, which is all that is required here, and which any sensible legal system knows how to deal with.
Jul 03 13:36:21 <Morgan> Say that in simpler words, please. ;)
Jul 03 13:36:30 <Amroth> yes
Jul 03 13:36:39 <Amroth> I understand nothing about this whole case.
Jul 03 13:36:44 <mithrennaith> I’m afraid it doesn’t come any simpler. :(
Jul 03 13:36:49 <Morgan> :)
Jul 03 13:36:55 <mithrennaith> I’ll try.
Jul 03 13:37:34 <Amroth> :D
Jul 03 13:37:38 <mithrennaith> If you want an activity, a purpose, a co-operation, to have a continuity not dependent upon a single person --
Jul 03 13:37:47 <Morgan> ok
Jul 03 13:37:59 <KingAragorn> Yes, that's the whole point
Jul 03 13:38:10 <mithrennaith> -- you have to set up an organisation, that is not dependent upon a single person, --
Jul 03 13:38:25 <Morgan> ok
Jul 03 13:38:31 <Amroth> ik
Jul 03 13:38:35 <mithrennaith> -- bound to the purpose of maintaining that activity and/or co-operation.
Jul 03 13:38:36 <Amroth> ok*
Jul 03 13:38:44 <Morgan> ik
Jul 03 13:39:10 <KingAragorn> ik Morgan ik!
Jul 03 13:39:12 <Hyarion> are there any Tolkien-related communities that do this aside from the TS?
Jul 03 13:39:33 <Amroth> TS = Tolkien Society, right?
Jul 03 13:39:36 <Hyarion> yea
Jul 03 13:39:46 <KingAragorn> Not that I know of
Jul 03 13:39:52 <mithrennaith> If the continuity of that organisation, its ability to maintain itself and its activity is to be maintained in society at large --
Jul 03 13:40:05 <mithrennaith> -- such an organisation needs to have a legal standing.
Jul 03 13:40:46 <mithrennaith> (some redundant verbiage there, but I hope you get my point.)
Jul 03 13:41:08 <KingAragorn> No no, it's spot on and very helpful I'm sure
Jul 03 13:41:24 <mithrennaith> Now in legal theory, that legal standing is called ‘legal personality’.
Jul 03 13:41:35 <Hyarion> indeed, glad we have you to translate for us.
Jul 03 13:41:56 <KingAragorn> So, is this something to be pursued or quashed?
Jul 03 13:42:15 <Hyarion> Mith, you still around?
Jul 03 13:42:30 <Mith> Yes.
Jul 03 13:42:32 <Morgan> Hyarion, what are your feelings about this? Can you understand the worries?
Jul 03 13:42:34 <mithrennaith> That means that an organisation can have rights and duties, possessions and obligations, and persue or defend them in court, as if it were a natural human being with citizenship standing.
Jul 03 13:43:27 <Amroth> If we get a charity under the UK (or is it still in the USA) laws, would that also change our ©right laws?
Jul 03 13:43:36 <Morgan> It seems like you're building an argument, Mithrennaith?
Jul 03 13:43:39 <mithrennaith> Now in some legal systems, such as France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc. - generally called the Civil Law systems --
Jul 03 13:43:44 <Hyarion> imho this makes sense if we were a larger organization, but I think it becomes too complicated for a community of our size.
Jul 03 13:43:54 <Amroth> yes
Jul 03 13:44:04 <mithrennaith> -- ‘legal personality’ is a fundamental concept.
Jul 03 13:44:23 <Mith> Actually, under English law for charities under £5,000 it's relatively straightforward, provides very little administration at all
Jul 03 13:44:36 <Hyarion> what are the benefits?
Jul 03 13:44:59 <Mith> I think Mithrennaith has outlined them pretty impressively!
Jul 03 13:45:12 <mithrennaith> The written laws of those countries define forms of organisation that are required in society, provide a basic operating structure for them, and declare they have legal personality.
Jul 03 13:45:25 <Hyarion> do we need to have our own bank account? board members? I guess I just don't understand the process.
Jul 03 13:45:32 <KingAragorn> We just have to declare income, and charitable & non-charitiable income each year (and hold an AGM) - that's all the admin!
Jul 03 13:45:47 <Amroth> AGM?
Jul 03 13:45:48 <Mith> There are trustees which are appointed/elected by AGM
Jul 03 13:45:49 <KingAragorn> *charitable & non-charitiable expenditure
Jul 03 13:45:58 <KingAragorn> Annual General Meeting
Jul 03 13:46:07 <mithrennaith> So you can have the limited company, the plc, the society, the foundation, the cooperative, the incorporated partnership.
Jul 03 13:46:17 <Mith> Seeing as we have a meeting once a month an AGM isn't too big an ordeal!
Jul 03 13:46:27 <KingAragorn> Yes, hence the brackets
Jul 03 13:46:37 <Hyarion> would it make sense to be a UK charity when we are based in the US?
Jul 03 13:46:50 <Mith> England and Wales*
Jul 03 13:46:57 <mithrennaith> Indeed - if we provide for online AGM in our constitution.
Jul 03 13:46:59 <Mith> Scotland and NI are different systems
Jul 03 13:47:12 <Mith> I don't know about US, I have yet to have a chance to look into it.
Jul 03 13:47:17 <KingAragorn> For sake of argument the system in England and Wales shows that it's a feasible idea
Jul 03 13:47:32 <mithrennaith> I think it would not make sense to be an Eng&Wal charity when being based in the US.
Jul 03 13:47:40 <KingAragorn> But we could research US(/State?) law
Jul 03 13:47:41 <Amroth> Would a ENgland-Wales charity mean that we are under UK copyright laws?
Jul 03 13:48:23 <Amroth> +1 to Mithrennaith
Jul 03 13:48:25 <mithrennaith> I think yes, but seeing that our server is in the US we would still also come under US copyright laws.
Jul 03 13:48:49 <KingAragorn> Being a charity, a not-for-profit-organisation, copyright laws shouldn't hinder us
Jul 03 13:48:58 <mithrennaith> Copyright matters do not usually follow nationality of incorporation --
Jul 03 13:49:03 <Amroth> I have to go now.
Jul 03 13:49:10 <Hyarion> thanks for joining us Amroth
Jul 03 13:49:10 <Morgan> bye
Jul 03 13:49:12 <Hyarion> have a great weekend!
Jul 03 13:49:18 <Amroth> Would it be possible if the cabbage-discussion is postponed?
Jul 03 13:49:20 <KingAragorn> Bye
Jul 03 13:49:21 <mithrennaith> -- it is a matter of where matters are published and where rights are or may be infringed.
Jul 03 13:49:26 <Amroth> thanks, Hyarion
Jul 03 13:49:31 <mithrennaith> Bye amroth!
Jul 03 13:49:34 <Mith> Bye Amroth. Will you be around later in the week?
Jul 03 13:49:43 <Amroth> this week yes
Jul 03 13:50:05 <Amroth> but from 8-23 June I'll be in France.
Jul 03 13:50:06 <mithrennaith> But the whole problem with invoking the concept of charity under English law is this:
Jul 03 13:50:34 <Amroth> Bye everybody
Jul 03 13:50:40 <KingAragorn> Bye bye
Jul 03 13:50:41 <Morgan> bye
Jul 03 13:50:59 <mithrennaith> English law (and this also goes for NI law, and to a great extent Scots law) and US law, historically do not know the concept of legal personality.
Jul 03 13:51:12 * Amroth has quit (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
Jul 03 13:51:38 <mithrennaith> So the actual effects of legal personality, i.e. being able to have property, stand at court, and so on --
Jul 03 13:52:18 <mithrennaith> -- have to be achieved using other common concepts of UK, or US, or what is called ‘Common Law systems’.
Jul 03 13:53:16 <mithrennaith> companies, and certain other institutions, can be incorporated at law - that means that they have a ‘corpus’, a ‘body’ that has its own legal personality.
Jul 03 13:53:55 <mithrennaith> That is not generally open to other organisations, especially not voluntary organisitions as societies and foundations.
Jul 03 13:54:12 <Hyarion> I'm glad mithrennaith is here to set us straight.
Jul 03 13:54:13 <mithrennaith> Hence common law makes great use of the concept of ‘trust’.
Jul 03 13:54:49 <KingAragorn> Yes, but there are thousands of charities and businesses that are run under the concept of trust
Jul 03 13:54:56 <mithrennaith> Which is that some person or persons are at law owners of the societies property, and can stand in court on its behalf --
Jul 03 13:55:57 <mithrennaith> -- but are bound by rules to excercise those rights to the benefit and in accordance with the purpose of that society.
Jul 03 13:56:43 <mithrennaith> This is ‘trust’ as a legal construct, not the general concept of trust of one human being in another (or in god for that matter).
Jul 03 13:57:19 <mithrennaith> Now this concept of ‘trust’ does not need the concept of ‘charity’.
Jul 03 13:58:05 <mithrennaith> But English law (and Scottish law in its own way) has set up mechanisms to secure the proper use of trust, --
Jul 03 13:58:33 <mithrennaith> -- especially when that is used to organise some activity of public benefit.
Jul 03 13:59:08 <mithrennaith> Hence the concept of ‘charity’, and the Charity Commissioners, to ensure that public charities --
Jul 03 13:59:42 <mithrennaith> -- are run in the public benefit, do not defraud well intentioned people, and do not defraud the inland revenue.
Jul 03 13:59:57 <mithrennaith> And that is the whole problem: --
Jul 03 14:01:11 <mithrennaith> -- that the several forms of UK law use a concept of public law - how the country is run - to regulate a concept of private law - how people can organise there activities in a proper and valid way.
Jul 03 14:02:59 <mithrennaith> That is why I am wary of becoming a charity just for the purpose of gaining legal personality, for the instrument is flawed for that purpose, and with it comes a lot of legal requirements that have nothing to do with our purpose, and that we can miss like a pain in the ass.
Jul 03 14:03:50 <mithrennaith> I think someone with a good understanding of US (and state) law should investigate what the position is there, and what the pro’s, con’s and legal requirements and duties are.
Jul 03 14:04:14 <KingAragorn> What legal requirements under, say, English and Welsh law?
Jul 03 14:04:26 <KingAragorn> For a very small charity
Jul 03 14:04:51 <mithrennaith> For, like it or not, the only locality we are bound to at the moment is where Hyarion operates our server, and that is in the US. --
Jul 03 14:04:59 <KingAragorn> From what I understand it's far easier to run a charity in England and Wales the US
Jul 03 14:05:21 <mithrennaith> -- Not much sense in wanting to operate something elsewhere without good reason.
Jul 03 14:06:06 <mithrennaith> Well, it may be that under US law we can gain legal personality without being a charity. An incorporated association, e.g.
Jul 03 14:06:20 <Hyarion> hopefully in the future we'll have enough traffic to have a redundant server in the UK
Jul 03 14:06:38 <mithrennaith> And I don’t know precisely what the requirements under English and Welsh law is.
Jul 03 14:06:47 <mithrennaith> *are
Jul 03 14:07:02 <KingAragorn>
Jul 03 14:07:59 <mithrennaith> I only know that the rules the Charity commissioners apply to the TS do prevent the AGM from excercising certain rights fundamental in a democratic organisation in relation to the trustees.
Jul 03 14:08:15 <KingAragorn> We wouldn't register with the Charity Commission as we wouldn't have an income greater than £5000PA. All we'd do is set up a constitution and apply Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for tax relief
Jul 03 14:08:23 <mithrennaith> I’ll have a look at that site, thank you KA.
Jul 03 14:10:01 <mithrennaith> ‘‘Small groups which are not charities are also welcome to use this model constitution, though they would not be covered by charity law’’
Jul 03 14:10:11 <KingAragorn> Yes
Jul 03 14:11:11 <mithrennaith> I wonder, does that mean we don’t need to be a charity, in order to get some of the basic benefits of the surrogate legal personality that trusts have? As the page says the committee members are the trustees, I think the answer is yes.
Jul 03 14:11:31 <mithrennaith> Don’t know for sure, though.
Jul 03 14:12:59 <KingAragorn> As I've said a few times, we wouldn't be regulated by the Charity Commision. But we would still need to apply for tax relief and get a HMRC charity number.
Jul 03 14:14:13 <mithrennaith> H’m. What practical need do we have of tax relief, I wonder.
Jul 03 14:15:02 <mithrennaith> Also, this web page is typical of what I don’t like in British government information material:,--
Jul 03 14:15:15 <mithrennaith> -- they tell you only how they would like you to do it. --
Jul 03 14:15:45 <mithrennaith> -- They do not actually tell you what the law is and what you are required and what you are allowed to do.
Jul 03 14:16:33 <mithrennaith> Nothing objectionable in the model constitution in itself. It is very basic.
Jul 03 14:16:53 <Mith> So
Jul 03 14:16:57 <Mith> Are we open to the idea?
Jul 03 14:17:03 <Morgan> Alright, now we've raised the topic, at least. Perhaps move on and continue thinking about the future of TG?
Jul 03 14:17:07 <Mith> In principle? Is it worth exploring?
Jul 03 14:17:17 <Morgan> yes
Jul 03 14:17:21 <KingAragorn> Absolutely
Jul 03 14:17:29 <mithrennaith> But one simple question: can we hold AGM’s online? Does the law behind this allow that? No information at all to be able to answer that question is given.
Jul 03 14:17:32 <KingAragorn> Plenty of things yet to discuss
Jul 03 14:17:34 <Mith> How about
Jul 03 14:17:41 <Mith> We go away
Jul 03 14:17:51 <Mith> Have a look at these questions
Jul 03 14:18:00 <mithrennaith> That makes it impossible to discuss informedly how we can tailor this model constitution to our needs.
Jul 03 14:18:03 <Mith> And in some weeks' time we can present a variety of proposals?
Jul 03 14:18:21 <mithrennaith> We can only decide whether to take it lock stock and barrel or not.
Jul 03 14:18:22 <KingAragorn> How about a mid-month meeting?
Jul 03 14:18:37 <mithrennaith> That is not what I call a proper way to decide a legal matter.
Jul 03 14:18:58 <mithrennaith> In principle, however, I agree that this is worth exploring.
Jul 03 14:19:31 <KingAragorn> Moving on, next up is Morgan with "Start with lower-case letters in articles on words?"
Jul 03 14:19:33 <mithrennaith> Mid-month meeting: I’m away to the Tolkien Thing in Germany at mid-month weekend.
Jul 03 14:19:39 <Morgan> alright
Jul 03 14:20:05 <KingAragorn> Next week?
Jul 03 14:20:44 <mithrennaith> Out dining with Unquendor theatre group.
Jul 03 14:21:05 <mithrennaith> probably back home later than today.
Jul 03 14:21:17 <KingAragorn> 31st?
Jul 03 14:21:23 <mithrennaith> Can do.
Jul 03 14:21:39 <Mith> Make it so, No. 1!
Jul 03 14:21:40 <KingAragorn> That would give us plenty of time to prepare
Jul 03 14:21:41 <mithrennaith> Week after (regular August meeting) not.
Jul 03 14:21:55 <Mith> Morgan, what did you want to discuss?
Jul 03 14:21:59 <KingAragorn> Moving on, next up is Morgan with "Start with lower-case letters in articles on words?"
Jul 03 14:22:01 <Hyarion> unfortunately I must run out for a bit, thanks to everyone who stopped in
Jul 03 14:22:09 <Morgan> ok, bye!
Jul 03 14:22:22 <KingAragorn> Bye bye
Jul 03 14:22:27 <Mith> Bye
Jul 03 14:22:29 <Hyarion> put me down for a vote on the opposite of whatever Morgan votes :p
Jul 03 14:22:32 <mithrennaith> Bye Hyarion!
Jul 03 14:22:44 <mithrennaith> Thanks for your time and opinions!
Jul 03 14:24:08 <KingAragorn> Morgan... ?? ( :P )
Jul 03 14:24:38 <mithrennaith> yesss...
Jul 03 14:25:02 <Morgan> Well, it's all in the question - should we care to use lower-case initial letter in articles on linguistic words (like Wiktionary)
Jul 03 14:25:28 <Mith> Just to clarify the argument
Jul 03 14:26:15 <Morgan> (i.e., when the attested word starts with a lower-case initial letter)
Jul 03 14:26:50 <mithrennaith> When, in short, it is basically just a word, not a name of an encyclopedic concept.
Jul 03 14:27:02 <Morgan> yep
Jul 03 14:27:19 <KingAragorn> Why not
Jul 03 14:27:24 <KingAragorn> I say yes
Jul 03 14:27:28 <Morgan> I've mostly been editing on linguistic articles lately, so I just want some kind of guideline
Jul 03 14:27:47 <mithrennaith> Am I correct in thinking that the wiki-software doesn’t know the difference, i.e. it still starts the name in the URL with a capital?
Jul 03 14:27:53 <Mith> This requires using , just so everyone knows
Jul 03 14:28:02 <Mith> Mithrennaith: yes
Jul 03 14:28:11 <mithrennaith> Which means?
Jul 03 14:28:24 <Mith> Wiktionary has rigged its software to allow lowercase page names
Jul 03 14:28:50 <Mith> (Noticed that their Main Page isn't axtually a main space article like all other wikis)
Jul 03 14:29:06 <Mith>
Jul 03 14:29:37 <Mith> It gives the appearance of being lowercase when it's not. Very handy!
Jul 03 14:30:53 <KingAragorn> All done?
Jul 03 14:31:01 <mithrennaith> Yes, I see.
Jul 03 14:31:04 <KingAragorn> Amroth wanted his discussion postponed.
Jul 03 14:31:15 <KingAragorn> So, unless there's anything else?
Jul 03 14:31:16 <mithrennaith> Well, I’m in favour then.
Jul 03 14:31:42 <mithrennaith> No.
Jul 03 14:32:03 <KingAragorn> The question is that this meeting do now adjourn. As many of that opinion say Aye. ( :P )
Jul 03 14:32:07 <KingAragorn> AYE
Jul 03 14:32:09 <mithrennaith> I think the matter of the date project need not be discussed here, we better find a suitable place on wiki.
Jul 03 14:32:23 <Morgan> aye
Jul 03 14:32:28 <Mith> aye
Jul 03 14:32:39 <mithrennaith> aye