Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/5 February 2012/Transcript

[2012-02-05 20:04:21] <KingAragorn> Welcome to Tolkien Gateway's second meeting of 2012! Mith, Amroth, Ederchil, Hyarion, Hyarion, KingAragorn, and Morgan are all present.
[2012-02-05 20:04:42] <Ederchil> Two Hyarions?
[2012-02-05 20:04:52] <KingAragorn> Yes
[2012-02-05 20:04:53] <Hyarion> lol
[2012-02-05 20:04:56] <Hyarion> I'm that important!
[2012-02-05 20:05:04] <Morgan> I only see one!
[2012-02-05 20:05:15] <Hyarion> (in KA's welcome message)
[2012-02-05 20:05:21] <Morgan> Oh...
[2012-02-05 20:05:41] <KingAragorn> First up is Amroth with "How should we structure our Lego articles? A few possibilities:
[2012-02-05 20:05:41] <KingAragorn> * One article
[2012-02-05 20:05:41] <KingAragorn> * Articles about Lego The Lord of the Ring and Lego The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (and a general article?)
[2012-02-05 20:05:41] <KingAragorn> * Same as above, but with articles about individual sets (I prefer this one) "
[2012-02-05 20:05:54] -->| Jack ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
[2012-02-05 20:06:11] <Hyarion> hi Jack, we're discussing how to structure our Lego articles.
[2012-02-05 20:06:48] <Jack> ok
[2012-02-05 20:07:11] <Hyarion> how many individual sets are there?
[2012-02-05 20:07:17] <Amroth> Unknown yet
[2012-02-05 20:07:24] <Mith> Can I point out.
[2012-02-05 20:07:36] <Mith> We all agreed to basically discontinue doing collectibles
[2012-02-05 20:07:46] <Hyarion> not I!
[2012-02-05 20:07:47] <Mith> Are we overturning that
[2012-02-05 20:07:51] <Mith> Save Hyarion.
[2012-02-05 20:07:54] <Ederchil> We did?
[2012-02-05 20:08:03] <Mith> We definitely did
[2012-02-05 20:08:07] <Mith> This definitely happened
[2012-02-05 20:08:07] <Amroth> If this includes Lego, I change my opinion.
[2012-02-05 20:08:14] <Hyarion> Mith, was there anyone else at this meeting?
[2012-02-05 20:08:16] <Hyarion> :p
[2012-02-05 20:08:19] <Amroth> Yes, I think I can remember that.
[2012-02-05 20:08:38] <Mith> I'm not arguing whether that's right or wrong
[2012-02-05 20:08:44] <Mith> I'm just saying I believe we did
[2012-02-05 20:08:58] <Hyarion> so Amroth you're in favor of discontinuing Collectibles, but only if we exclude Legos? :p
[2012-02-05 20:09:17] <KingAragorn> We definitely agreed to remove the collectible portal, and I think this implied that we would tone down our emphasis on collectibles
[2012-02-05 20:09:32] <Mith> I can't find it! We got rid of the Collectibles Portal specifically following this decision
[2012-02-05 20:09:45] <Hyarion> We removed the Collectibles portal?! Dangit, I missed that.
[2012-02-05 20:09:46] <Amroth> No, I favor now to continue Collectibles.
[2012-02-05 20:09:50] <Ederchil> I think for the time being a list is sufficient.
[2012-02-05 20:09:58] <Mith> +1 Ederchil
[2012-02-05 20:10:05] <KingAragorn> +1 Ederchil
[2012-02-05 20:10:05] <Hyarion> a list of legos or collectibles?
[2012-02-05 20:10:17] <Amroth> Not totally sure.
[2012-02-05 20:10:19] <Jack> collectibles? could you explain to me what would fit in this section
[2012-02-05 20:10:25] <Ederchil> Lego.
[2012-02-05 20:10:34] <Morgan> Weta workshop stuff
[2012-02-05 20:10:40] <Ederchil> I mean, we could list other collectibles on their company page.
[2012-02-05 20:10:44] <Amroth> Some sets would definently deserve articles.
[2012-02-05 20:10:45] <Ederchil> Weta, Toy Biz, the lot.
[2012-02-05 20:10:48] <Mith> Royal Selangor stuff
[2012-02-05 20:10:51] <KingAragorn> Yeah, one article for Lego, for the time being at least, some suffice
[2012-02-05 20:11:06] <Morgan> +1 Ederchil
[2012-02-05 20:11:07] <Amroth> Though others (smaller lego sets) would be better on a list.
[2012-02-05 20:11:08] <Mith> ANything filmy. Cards, clothes, banners, toys, puzzles etc etc
[2012-02-05 20:12:03] <Hyarion> I think we can continue to add Lego content to the Lego article and when the article gets too long then we can bring this back up for discussion.
[2012-02-05 20:12:04] <Morgan> But don't touch my article >:-(
[2012-02-05 20:12:37] <Hyarion> well, when we talk about collectibles we're obviously not talking about your Super Cinema Card :p
[2012-02-05 20:12:47] <Morgan> :)
[2012-02-05 20:13:17] <Mith> WHY do we have a Super Cinema Card article?!
[2012-02-05 20:13:37] <Hyarion> The real question is why have we not featured the article yet.
[2012-02-05 20:13:43] <Hyarion> :p
[2012-02-05 20:13:44] <Mith> Hahah
[2012-02-05 20:14:12] <Mith> Actually it fails one of the Mith criteria
[2012-02-05 20:14:21] <Jack> Why was the collectible section taken out, if you don't mind me asking.
[2012-02-05 20:14:25] <Hyarion> My main concern with collectibles is once they cease production, the websites like Sideshow Collectibles won't have the information about them, and they will slowly be lost in time.
[2012-02-05 20:14:51] <Amroth> +1 to Hyarion
[2012-02-05 20:14:52] <Ederchil> Like so much of the pre-Internet collectibles already are.
[2012-02-05 20:15:07] <Mith> +1 Ederchil
[2012-02-05 20:15:08] <Jack> Then wouldn't make it more important to record their existence than ever.
[2012-02-05 20:15:21] <Mith> My problem is that a wiki isn't the best place to collect this information
[2012-02-05 20:15:30] <Hyarion> or is it actually the best?
[2012-02-05 20:15:32] <Mith> And, I think each collectible need not have its own article
[2012-02-05 20:16:03] <Mith> We could do TCG in one massive gallery
[2012-02-05 20:16:08] <Mith> I would be fine with that
[2012-02-05 20:16:19] <Mith> But many thousands of articles for each card?
[2012-02-05 20:16:20] <Hyarion> I'm fine with putting, for example, all the Lego information in one article, as long as it being in one article doesn't force us to exclude information.
[2012-02-05 20:16:25] <Amroth> We can always use lists
[2012-02-05 20:17:33] <Amroth> I think Lego should become a general article about Lego collectibles, Lego video games and Lego encylopedies (once we've enough information).
[2012-02-05 20:18:01] <KingAragorn> OK, can people state their preference for how to deal with Lego stuff?
[2012-02-05 20:18:03] <Amroth> And Lego LOTR and Lego The Hobbit can contain more detailed information about the respective sub-genres.
[2012-02-05 20:18:11] <Ederchil> If we get Lego video games they should eventually get their own page.
[2012-02-05 20:18:15] <Morgan> List articles, or adding lists and links to picture galleries to existing articles, is a good way to start, I think. If certain individual collectibles might deserve their own article, I see no problem with that, though.
[2012-02-05 20:18:21] <Hyarion> agreed with Ederchil.
[2012-02-05 20:18:30] <Mith> I agree with Ederchil
[2012-02-05 20:18:49] <Mith> Individual games, as with books, always deserve their own article
[2012-02-05 20:19:02] <Amroth> yes
[2012-02-05 20:19:15] <Mith> I think we shoudl stick with one Lego article for now. We know too little about what we might be getting to actually properly judge this.
[2012-02-05 20:19:20] <Amroth> Though, that deosn't mean we can't have a general article about Lego products.
[2012-02-05 20:19:24] <Hyarion> I think we're in agreement we don't need to split the article into individual sets.
[2012-02-05 20:19:33] <Ederchil> Yes
[2012-02-05 20:19:35] <KingAragorn> Everyone happy?
[2012-02-05 20:19:39] <Hyarion> Yep.
[2012-02-05 20:19:41] <Morgan> yep
[2012-02-05 20:19:45] <KingAragorn> Yes.
[2012-02-05 20:20:29] <Amroth> More or less
[2012-02-05 20:21:03] <KingAragorn> Amrtoh, we can discuss this more when we have more information
[2012-02-05 20:21:08] <KingAragorn> *Amroth
[2012-02-05 20:21:21] <Amroth> yes, I'm fine with that.
[2012-02-05 20:21:57] <KingAragorn> OK, next is Mith with "What do we do about artists we can't get hold of?"
[2012-02-05 20:22:22] <Mith> KingAragorn and I have been contacting artists to properly get copyright permissions.
[2012-02-05 20:22:31] <Mith> What do we do about the ones who don't respond?
[2012-02-05 20:22:48] <Ederchil> Any major ones so far?
[2012-02-05 20:22:53] <Hyarion> Assume fair use if we have to.
[2012-02-05 20:23:00] <KingAragorn> I think that we should place a fairuse template on all of their images
[2012-02-05 20:23:21] <Mith> Alan Lee and John Howe
[2012-02-05 20:23:39] <KingAragorn> Ederchil, there's a list here:
[2012-02-05 20:23:46] <Morgan> To be honest, I'd say that we should remove the images.
[2012-02-05 20:23:49] <Mith> I have two email addresses for Alan Lee and he hasn't replied on either
[2012-02-05 20:23:52] <Morgan> But it's a tough decision.
[2012-02-05 20:23:58] <Hyarion> They definitely qualify as fair use....
[2012-02-05 20:24:08] <Ederchil> John Howe had a sort of disclaimer on his website, right?
[2012-02-05 20:24:13] <Mith> Some artists have specifically requested deletion and I have complied
[2012-02-05 20:24:13] <Hyarion> correct
[2012-02-05 20:24:49] <Mith> But in the case of ones I have no information on, I can't accurately judge what their intentions to us would be
[2012-02-05 20:24:56] <KingAragorn> I'd prefer that we seek his permission, nonetheless
[2012-02-05 20:25:22] <Hyarion> Mith, which artists have requested delition?
[2012-02-05 20:25:23] <Morgan> Is it possible to add something like "If you're the copyright owner of this image, please contact [email protected] ..."?
[2012-02-05 20:25:31] <KingAragorn> Mith, have we contacted Howe in any way yet?
[2012-02-05 20:25:45] <Mith> The email I sent bounced
[2012-02-05 20:25:48] <Amroth> +1 to Morgan
[2012-02-05 20:25:59] <KingAragorn> Ah, OK
[2012-02-05 20:26:06] <Mith> I'm waiting for TS committee to find a better email address
[2012-02-05 20:26:09] <KingAragorn> I think there's a webform on his website that we could try
[2012-02-05 20:26:45] <KingAragorn> Morgan, I think that's a good idea
[2012-02-05 20:27:49] <KingAragorn> I may add that to the fairuse template
[2012-02-05 20:27:54] <KingAragorn> What does everyone think?
[2012-02-05 20:28:24] <Ederchil> Fairuse + If you're the copyright owner
[2012-02-05 20:28:25] <Hyarion> Do we have a list of artists which don't want their images to be uploaded for future reference?
[2012-02-05 20:28:37] <Ederchil> We should have a DNP list
[2012-02-05 20:29:06] <KingAragorn> Me and Mith have a spreadsheet with it on, but a list on TG would be useful
[2012-02-05 20:29:08] <Mith> Hope Hoover.
[2012-02-05 20:29:17] <Mith> Elizabeth Wyeth
[2012-02-05 20:29:47] <Mith> Jenny Dolfen has requested specific images be removed. Which will be a big loss
[2012-02-05 20:29:56] <Hyarion> Did they give any specific reasons?
[2012-02-05 20:30:05] <Mith> YEs
[2012-02-05 20:30:20] <Mith> Both said that those images were "old" and no longer wanted them online
[2012-02-05 20:30:28] <Mith> Hope Hoover and Elizabeth Wyeth is the same person
[2012-02-05 20:30:29] <Ederchil> Pity.
[2012-02-05 20:30:43] <Ederchil> Yeah, there was a Glorfindel pic that was similar.
[2012-02-05 20:30:44] <Mith> Jenny Dolfen gave me a list of specifc images we were allowed to keeep
[2012-02-05 20:31:05] <Mith> Elizabeth Wyeth said "I'll send you ones I'll let you use" which so far amounts to just one.
[2012-02-05 20:31:30] <Hyarion> Such a shame, I almost wish we would keep them up as fair use just so they don't get lost over time.
[2012-02-05 20:31:37] <Amroth> :(
[2012-02-05 20:31:53] <Mith> It is, but I think we are extending the meaning of fair use
[2012-02-05 20:32:27] <Mith> IF we get to a position where 95% of artists have given permission, I think we could really claim the 5% are fair use
[2012-02-05 20:32:41] <Mith> But we just have everything up and no one's said yes to it
[2012-02-05 20:32:51] <KingAragorn> But I think requesting permission has already reaped dividends
[2012-02-05 20:32:52] <Mith> To be fair, those two artists are in the minority
[2012-02-05 20:33:10] <Mith> Most are deliriously happy and tend to offer MORE things to upload from their private collections
[2012-02-05 20:33:21] <KingAragorn> And it puts us on good terms with them, so they may send us new images in the future
[2012-02-05 20:33:23] <Mith> I would point to in particular
[2012-02-05 20:33:30] <KingAragorn> Agreed!
[2012-02-05 20:34:02] -->| Icarus ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
[2012-02-05 20:34:11] <Mith> Indeed, it's good practice for artists to know that we exist.
[2012-02-05 20:34:30] <Ederchil> Nice
[2012-02-05 20:34:38] <KingAragorn> Yep.
[2012-02-05 20:34:47] <Amroth> Great picture
[2012-02-05 20:35:00] <Mith> Are we going with the Fair use + email option?
[2012-02-05 20:35:25] <KingAragorn> So, if we can't get hold of artists we should apply a fairuse template to their images and add the email option to the fairuse template
[2012-02-05 20:35:26] <Amroth> Looks like the best option.
[2012-02-05 20:35:27] <KingAragorn> All agreed?
[2012-02-05 20:35:29] <KingAragorn> +1
[2012-02-05 20:35:42] <Mith> I personally don't like it, but if that's what people want I will go along with it
[2012-02-05 20:35:52] <KingAragorn> What would you prefer?
[2012-02-05 20:35:55] <Ederchil> +1
[2012-02-05 20:36:03] <Amroth> +1
[2012-02-05 20:36:06] <Morgan> For the moment it's okay with me, but eventually we should investigate the legal issues in depth
[2012-02-05 20:36:24] <Ederchil> Do we even have a general site disclaimer?
[2012-02-05 20:36:43] <Morgan> Do you mean something like this?
[2012-02-05 20:36:49] <Amroth> I doubt we have
[2012-02-05 20:36:53] <Mith> No we don't
[2012-02-05 20:37:32] <Ederchil> We should.
[2012-02-05 20:38:09] <KingAragorn> I don't see how that would give us any legal protection
[2012-02-05 20:38:46] <KingAragorn> "We don't claim any responsibility for breaking the law"
[2012-02-05 20:39:45] <Morgan> I have little knowledge about these issues, but isn't the idea more to state who owns the copyright to the concepts we're using on TG?
[2012-02-05 20:39:49] <KingAragorn> If we don't break the law, then we'll be fine
[2012-02-05 20:40:33] <KingAragorn> OK, next is Mith with "Do we want to link in with LOTR Project somehow? (Not sure how, but every character on there links to a TG article, so might be nice to reciprocate)."
[2012-02-05 20:41:36] <KingAragorn> I'm not sure how we could link to it
[2012-02-05 20:42:39] <Morgan> (that is, in a "disclaimer")
[2012-02-05 20:42:40] <Ederchil> Morgan: yes.
[2012-02-05 20:42:40] <Mith> Do we?
[2012-02-05 20:42:40] <Morgan> Should we wait a little with next point?
[2012-02-05 20:42:40] <Amroth> Neither do I.
[2012-02-05 20:42:40] <Amroth> Maybe links at houses, families, etc.
[2012-02-05 20:43:04] <Hyarion> Something to think about, we don't have a main family tree article do we
[2012-02-05 20:43:31] <Jack> we should
[2012-02-05 20:43:33] <Morgan> AuletheSmith started something, didn't he?
[2012-02-05 20:43:44] <Mith> Well
[2012-02-05 20:43:50] <Mith> Although you can't see this is a feature
[2012-02-05 20:44:01] <Mith> There is a way to link to a specific character within the large familytree
[2012-02-05 20:44:50] <Mith> Eg:
[2012-02-05 20:45:14] <Mith> That shuold link to Arwen, if my memory serves
[2012-02-05 20:45:32] <KingAragorn> I would love to be able to create an extension that incorporates it
[2012-02-05 20:45:38] <KingAragorn> But that won't happen
[2012-02-05 20:46:49] <Amroth> There's an error on that page, though.
[2012-02-05 20:47:08] <Hyarion> I think it just boils down to how much value it adds to the reader if the article they are reading on TG already lists the family tree.
[2012-02-05 20:47:10] <Mith> Let's not go into the errors.
[2012-02-05 20:47:10] <Amroth> Beorn from the Hobbit is in no way the same person as Beorn in Eriol's Sotry.
[2012-02-05 20:47:23] <Hyarion> I certainly think it's worth linking to the project somewhere, just not on every family tree article at this point.
[2012-02-05 20:47:37] <Morgan> +1 Hyarion
[2012-02-05 20:47:46] <Mith> Amroth: for the record it is mentioned by Tolkien elsewhere but it is non-canon
[2012-02-05 20:48:36] <Amroth> Where?
[2012-02-05 20:49:03] <Hyarion> We should add that tidbit to our article, if it doesn't already include it.
[2012-02-05 20:49:08] <Mith> I can't remember off the top of my head. This isn't a discussion for now!
[2012-02-05 20:49:32] <KingAragorn> So, do we want to include a link within the External links section of articles?
[2012-02-05 20:49:39] <Amroth> you're right.
[2012-02-05 20:50:01] <Morgan> How do you mean, KA? On all articles on people?
[2012-02-05 20:50:27] <KingAragorn> Yes
[2012-02-05 20:50:35] <Morgan> No, I don't think so.
[2012-02-05 20:50:41] <Hyarion> I would hold off on that at this time.
[2012-02-05 20:51:19] <KingAragorn> So do we want to do anything?
[2012-02-05 20:52:08] <Morgan> An idea for the future might be to have something similar as we do with the links to other wikis "In other languages", to have a link in the left space, perhaps
[2012-02-05 20:52:25] <Ederchil> interwiki?
[2012-02-05 20:52:36] <Morgan> kind of, yeah
[2012-02-05 20:52:37] <KingAragorn> Like on Tolkien Index?
[2012-02-05 20:52:43] <Morgan> :)
[2012-02-05 20:52:48] <Morgan> Just an idea!
[2012-02-05 20:53:09] <Morgan> + I think we should wait and see how the project progresses
[2012-02-05 20:53:15] <Hyarion> agreed.
[2012-02-05 20:53:39] <Mith> Wait for what?
[2012-02-05 20:55:08] <KingAragorn> +1 Mith
[2012-02-05 20:55:10] <Hyarion> Well, just looking at the traffic, we received around 500 visits on the first day, and shortly after that it dropped dramatically to 30, I'm wondering if the site will even be around in a year.
[2012-02-05 20:55:34] <Mith> Emil is not going to give up
[2012-02-05 20:55:43] <Mith> He's been working on this for years
[2012-02-05 20:55:52] <KingAragorn> He's received fantastic promotion
[2012-02-05 20:56:08] <Mith> He got LOADS of traffic (more than he forsaw) from the sheer amount of attention it attracted
[2012-02-05 20:56:19] <Mith> It was picked up by The Guardian and Time Magazine!
[2012-02-05 20:56:29] <KingAragorn> Yeah!
[2012-02-05 20:56:34] <Amroth> I've to go now (op PC at least)
[2012-02-05 20:56:44] <Ederchil> Bye
[2012-02-05 20:56:48] <Hyarion> thanks for attending Amroth, have a great week!
[2012-02-05 20:56:52] <Mith> Bye!
[2012-02-05 20:56:52] <Amroth> I might join in again after a few minutes
[2012-02-05 20:56:59] <Amroth> Thank you, Hyarion
[2012-02-05 20:56:59] <Ederchil> Oh.
[2012-02-05 20:57:04] <Amroth> Bye everybody
[2012-02-05 20:57:09] <Amroth> (for now)
[2012-02-05 20:57:13] |<-- Amroth has left (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
[2012-02-05 20:57:13] <KingAragorn> Bye bye!
[2012-02-05 20:57:14] <Morgan> Speaking for myself, I'm concerned about the validity of the tree. Even though it's a cool project, it has been criticized for presenting "one" version of the legendarium.
[2012-02-05 20:57:30] <Ederchil> I don't see any specific sources.
[2012-02-05 20:59:14] <Jack> I'm gonna have to leave
[2012-02-05 20:59:15] <KingAragorn> I don't see a family tree ever being objective
[2012-02-05 20:59:17] <KingAragorn> Bye!
[2012-02-05 20:59:18] <Ederchil> Bye
[2012-02-05 20:59:25] <Jack> See you all
[2012-02-05 20:59:28] <Hyarion> thanks for attending Jack!
[2012-02-05 20:59:34] <Morgan> A critic proposed that the tree should be dynamic, so you could change and see "ah, this is how Tolkien conceived of the family tree in the 1930s, and this how it was when publishing the LotR, etc". On TG we have a possibilty of adding such complex histories to our articles, but as KA just said, a static family tree will never be objective.
[2012-02-05 20:59:43] |<-- Jack has left (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
[2012-02-05 21:00:05] <Mith> The tree will have sources soon
[2012-02-05 21:00:21] <Ederchil> Especially the Celeborn story is a bit more difficult than he presents it.
[2012-02-05 21:00:22] <Mith> And mistakes are being corrected
[2012-02-05 21:00:39] <Mith> I said to Emil I would just leave out Celeborn's ancestors entirely
[2012-02-05 21:01:11] <Hyarion> I think even given a perfect visually beautiful family tree, I would be reluctant to link every single character page to it, when we have the relevant family tree already listed in the article
[2012-02-05 21:02:45] <Mith> Is that what everyone thinks?
[2012-02-05 21:02:48] <Morgan> For me it would be okay with a link similar to "interwiki"
[2012-02-05 21:02:58] <Mith> Can we do an IW?
[2012-02-05 21:02:58] <KingAragorn> I'll go with the flow
[2012-02-05 21:03:11] <Morgan> Mith: could you explain how you think the tree could be used on TG?
[2012-02-05 21:03:12] <KingAragorn> We could do interwiki
[2012-02-05 21:03:30] <Mith> We can't have a massive tree in each article
[2012-02-05 21:03:42] <Mith> In fact, I don't think we can actually have 1 massive tree anywhere
[2012-02-05 21:03:50] <Morgan> (I actually wouldn't mind interwikis with WP and EoA, actually, but that's a different question)
[2012-02-05 21:03:51] <Mith> Technically we're limited
[2012-02-05 21:04:00] <Mith> (I wouldn't support that)
[2012-02-05 21:04:22] <Mith> This would show people characters in the much broader context
[2012-02-05 21:04:47] <Hyarion> I think for a lot of characters, there is a family tree at Frodo Baggins, and then a larger tree at Baggins
[2012-02-05 21:05:34] <Hyarion> I would be willing to include the link in articles such as Baggins Family
[2012-02-05 21:05:51] <Morgan> Mith: are you thinking of something like a youtube box, where you can scroll the family tree from TG?
[2012-02-05 21:06:43] <Mith> No
[2012-02-05 21:06:46] <Mith> Just a link
[2012-02-05 21:06:48] <KingAragorn> I think that was what I was thinking about with my crazy extension idea
[2012-02-05 21:07:01] <Morgan> :)
[2012-02-05 21:07:47] <KingAragorn> OK, so what are we moving towards?
[2012-02-05 21:07:47] <Morgan> Hyarion, how about a link in the left space, below the interwiki links?
[2012-02-05 21:07:54] <Hyarion> I'm sure a better family tree template will pop up eventually
[2012-02-05 21:08:53] <KingAragorn> "In other languages"?
[2012-02-05 21:09:02] <KingAragorn> I renamed that Link or something for TI
[2012-02-05 21:09:05] <Morgan> No, it would require a different heading
[2012-02-05 21:09:22] <Hyarion> imho thousands of links like that is excessive for the value is provides
[2012-02-05 21:09:59] <KingAragorn> Perhaps
[2012-02-05 21:10:06] <KingAragorn> But we should make an article for it, at least
[2012-02-05 21:10:11] <Mith> Ederchil?
[2012-02-05 21:10:29] <Ederchil> Sorrt, was away
[2012-02-05 21:10:37] <Hyarion> there we go, how about for now we make an article for the website.
[2012-02-05 21:10:58] -->| AmrothMobile ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
[2012-02-05 21:11:26] <Hyarion> welcome back Amroth.
[2012-02-05 21:11:30] <KingAragorn> Hello on-the-go-Amroth
[2012-02-05 21:11:39] <Ederchil> Sure, no prob.
[2012-02-05 21:12:11] <AmrothMobile> hi
[2012-02-05 21:12:40] <KingAragorn> OK, so we're going to make an article and that's it?
[2012-02-05 21:12:54] <Ederchil> +1
[2012-02-05 21:12:55] <Hyarion> at least for now I think that's a start.
[2012-02-05 21:13:46] <Morgan> Are you thinking we would give this certain website too much exposure on TG, Hyarion?
[2012-02-05 21:14:07] <Hyarion> I think I'm just selfish and like doing things ourselves :)
[2012-02-05 21:17:43] <KingAragorn> Me with "Discussion of The Hobbit rewrite"
[2012-02-05 21:17:54] <Hyarion> Morgan, what is said is I didn't even notice the spelling...
[2012-02-05 21:18:02] <KingAragorn> What sections should we include?
[2012-02-05 21:18:12] <Hyarion> good question.
[2012-02-05 21:18:23] <KingAragorn> Plot?
[2012-02-05 21:18:36] <Mith> Everything the Wikipedia includes and more. :p
[2012-02-05 21:18:44] <KingAragorn> Fair enough
[2012-02-05 21:18:44] <Morgan> Links to the chapter articles for the plot?
[2012-02-05 21:18:59] <KingAragorn> But I was thinking that we should distinguish ourselves somewhat from wikipedia
[2012-02-05 21:19:00] <Ederchil> +1 Morgan
[2012-02-05 21:19:06] <Hyarion> which reminds me not all of The Hobbit chapters have been fleshed out.
[2012-02-05 21:19:06] <KingAragorn> +1 Morgan
[2012-02-05 21:19:21] <Ederchil> "Conception"?
[2012-02-05 21:20:00] <Morgan> yes... do you mean how it came into creation?
[2012-02-05 21:20:15] <Ederchil> writing, publishing. the lot.
[2012-02-05 21:20:35] <Hyarion> Conception, Publication and Editions, Synopsis, Critical Response, Adaptations
[2012-02-05 21:20:44] <Hyarion> just throwing some out there
[2012-02-05 21:21:17] <Hyarion> Similarities to Beowful should probably be changed to "Influences" and include other influences as well.
[2012-02-05 21:21:55] <KingAragorn> "Inspiration and conception"?
[2012-02-05 21:22:03] <Hyarion> sounds good to me.
[2012-02-05 21:23:23] <KingAragorn> So ==Plot== with chapter links?
[2012-02-05 21:23:24] <KingAragorn> +1
[2012-02-05 21:23:37] <Ederchil> +1
[2012-02-05 21:23:53] <Hyarion> isn't that what we have, or do you mean removing the current synopsis?
[2012-02-05 21:24:01] <AmrothMobile> +1
[2012-02-05 21:24:05] <KingAragorn> I think we should rewrite it and rename it
[2012-02-05 21:24:32] <Hyarion> okay, I'd be fine with it being shorter as well, since the chapter pages can delve into more detail
[2012-02-05 21:25:14] <Hyarion> maybe a section for Characters in The Hobbit?
[2012-02-05 21:25:14] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-02-05 21:25:22] <AmrothMobile> +1
[2012-02-05 21:25:42] <KingAragorn> ==First edition==?
[2012-02-05 21:25:43] <KingAragorn> +1
[2012-02-05 21:25:50] <Morgan> Or perhaps rather a link to Category:Characters in The Hobbit
[2012-02-05 21:25:51] <KingAragorn> Or ===First edition=== under plot?>
[2012-02-05 21:26:02] <KingAragorn> What?
[2012-02-05 21:26:06] <AmrothMobile> +1
[2012-02-05 21:26:33] <Hyarion> I'd remove First edition and change it to 'Publication' or 'Editions' or something more generic
[2012-02-05 21:26:38] |<-- AmrothMobile has left (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
[2012-02-05 21:26:39] <Morgan> We have an article for the first edition of The Hobbit
[2012-02-05 21:26:45] <KingAragorn> Do we?!
[2012-02-05 21:27:13] -->| AmrothMobile ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
[2012-02-05 21:27:14] <Morgan>
[2012-02-05 21:27:24] <Hyarion> or :)
[2012-02-05 21:27:24] <KingAragorn> hmmm
[2012-02-05 21:27:31] <Morgan> Just a stub
[2012-02-05 21:27:33] <Hyarion> oh, mine was just a redirect
[2012-02-05 21:28:09] |<-- AmrothMobile has left (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
[2012-02-05 21:28:17] <KingAragorn> Not sure about having a separate article
[2012-02-05 21:28:33] <Ederchil> Sorry guys, gotta go. Good night.
[2012-02-05 21:28:40] <Morgan> good night
[2012-02-05 21:28:42] <Hyarion> thanks for attending Ederchil!
[2012-02-05 21:28:43] |<-- Ederchil has left (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
[2012-02-05 21:29:11] <Hyarion> I'm sure if we get Pieter Collier or someone writing about the 1st edition, we can easily have an article's worth.
[2012-02-05 21:29:24] <KingAragorn> No
[2012-02-05 21:29:34] -->| mib_pejpht ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
[2012-02-05 21:29:49] <Hyarion> although maybe we should change it to The Hobbit Editions or something, so you can include all various editions
[2012-02-05 21:29:54] <Hyarion> hi mib_pejpht
[2012-02-05 21:30:18] <Morgan> We already have
[2012-02-05 21:30:29] =-= mib_pejpht is now known as AmrothMobile
[2012-02-05 21:30:46] <KingAragorn> Anywho
[2012-02-05 21:30:55] <KingAragorn> Should we keep these seperate articles?
[2012-02-05 21:31:03] <KingAragorn> *separate
[2012-02-05 21:31:10] <AmrothMobile> i droped out accidently
[2012-02-05 21:31:30] <KingAragorn> OK
[2012-02-05 21:31:38] <Hyarion> hmm, we'll want to keep them separate if we still want to have an article for every different edition
[2012-02-05 21:32:07] <Hyarion> example:
[2012-02-05 21:32:21] <Hyarion> or,
[2012-02-05 21:33:22] <Hyarion> I think there's enough information to justify separate articles for every edition, but I may be in the minority.
[2012-02-05 21:33:23] <KingAragorn> I'm not sure about the 1st edition article
[2012-02-05 21:33:34] <Hyarion> it definitely needs a lot of work.
[2012-02-05 21:33:36] <KingAragorn> But, if it's fleshed out then it should be fine
[2012-02-05 21:33:43] <Hyarion> agreed.
[2012-02-05 21:34:28] <KingAragorn> OK, so a "Publications and editions" section
[2012-02-05 21:34:30] <KingAragorn> ?
[2012-02-05 21:34:31] <KingAragorn> +1
[2012-02-05 21:34:45] <AmrothMobile> +1 Hyarion
[2012-02-05 21:34:53] <Hyarion> agreed, or at least something along that phrase
[2012-02-05 21:34:54] <KingAragorn> Which should be a list that links to these articles
[2012-02-05 21:35:17] <Hyarion> or a very brief summary of notable publication/edition
[2012-02-05 21:36:03] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-02-05 21:36:28] <KingAragorn> And then "Inspiration and conception" and "Adaptions"?
[2012-02-05 21:36:45] <AmrothMobile> +1 Hyarion
[2012-02-05 21:36:59] <Hyarion> sounds good
[2012-02-05 21:37:25] <Hyarion> we can put this list of possible sections on the talk page for future modification right?
[2012-02-05 21:38:04] <KingAragorn> Or the Forum page for the Countdown to The Hobbit
[2012-02-05 21:38:24] <Hyarion> perfect.
[2012-02-05 21:38:38] <Morgan> or the talk page :) (easier to find!)
[2012-02-05 21:39:02] <AmrothMobile> i prefet forum
[2012-02-05 21:39:02] <KingAragorn> No
[2012-02-05 21:39:06] <KingAragorn> On the forum page
[2012-02-05 21:39:12] <KingAragorn> I don't want Mrogan to find it
[2012-02-05 21:39:20] <KingAragorn> and Morgan
[2012-02-05 21:39:25] <AmrothMobile> we shouldnt spread information
[2012-02-05 21:39:30] <Morgan> No! :)
[2012-02-05 21:39:32] |<-- AmrothMobile has left (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
[2012-02-05 21:39:43] -->| mib_6fpncc ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
[2012-02-05 21:40:17] <Morgan> Was that the last point?
[2012-02-05 21:41:26] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-02-05 21:41:28] <KingAragorn> Why not
[2012-02-05 21:41:28] <mib_6fpncc> and i think so
[2012-02-05 21:42:33] <KingAragorn> OK, meeting adjourned