Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/5 June 2011/Transcript

[2011-06-05 20:18:47] <KingAragorn> Welcome to Tolkien Gateway's monthly meeting! KingAragorn, Mith, Theoden1, Ainaldo, Amroth, Ederchil, Gamling, Hyarion, and mithrennaith are all present.
[2011-06-05 20:19:09] <KingAragorn> First on the agenda is an update on the technical problems of the website
[2011-06-05 20:19:16] <KingAragorn> Perhaps Mith could update everyone?
[2011-06-05 20:21:24] <KingAragorn> No?
[2011-06-05 20:21:45] <Mith> On spam protection, I'm not sure if everyone's read the forum post, but what I've done is preventing image upload, article creation and article movement to autoconfirmed users. So, only once you've been a member for 12 hours and have made 10 edits do you become "autoconfirmed" in order to be able to do those things. As the vast majority of spammers would sign up and upload one image and...
[2011-06-05 20:21:47] <Mith> ...create one new article this has successfully blocked them all out.
[2011-06-05 20:22:01] <KingAragorn> Ah :)
[2011-06-05 20:22:19] <Ainaldo> Oh, good.
[2011-06-05 20:22:25] <Amroth> good news.
[2011-06-05 20:22:26] <Ederchil> yeah, i noticed some new accounts but no spamming
[2011-06-05 20:22:34] <Mith> On reCAPTCHA we can't install that until our MediaWiki software is upgraded, which Hyarion assures me will be very soon.
[2011-06-05 20:22:35] <mithrennaith> Indeed.
[2011-06-05 20:23:00] <Mith> So, I think this particular spam problem has been solved.
[2011-06-05 20:23:15] <mithrennaith> Until they get wise to it ...
[2011-06-05 20:23:39] <Mith> But we may have to wait a bit before anons can edit. Although not everyone wants them back...
[2011-06-05 20:24:02] <Mith> (You can view user rights here - this may make understand the user rights things easier
[2011-06-05 20:24:24] <KingAragorn> Hyarion fixed the email problem today too
[2011-06-05 20:24:25] <Mith> We, when we upgrade we can install reCAPTCHA just for non-autoconfirmed
[2011-06-05 20:24:42] <mithrennaith> good.
[2011-06-05 20:24:43] <Mith> Or could change the requirements to become autoconfirmed. More edits or longer time frame.
[2011-06-05 20:25:04] <Amroth> That's good news, too
[2011-06-05 20:25:23] <Mith> On articles too large to edit, I believe I fixed this earlier today. (You see I edited List of Place Names)
[2011-06-05 20:25:43] <mithrennaith> Anyway, war with spammers is one of finding new tactics all the time.
[2011-06-05 20:25:45] <Mith> So, all-in-all, good progress made
[2011-06-05 20:25:45] <Ainaldo> I don't see many anonymous editors.
[2011-06-05 20:26:01] <Amroth> anonymous editors can't edit.
[2011-06-05 20:26:03] <mithrennaith> That is because at the moment anonymous edits are blocked
[2011-06-05 20:26:03] <Ainaldo> And account creation is not onerous.
[2011-06-05 20:26:07] <Mith> Ainaldo, we have none. We were so overwhelmed by spammers last summer we blocked them out.
[2011-06-05 20:26:18] <KingAragorn> Anons were blocked to deal with spam - although at the time it was a temporary solution
[2011-06-05 20:26:24] <Ainaldo> I think it was a good decision.
[2011-06-05 20:26:43] <Mith> I personally hope it's still temporary but I know others disagree. It's something we probably need to discuss.
[2011-06-05 20:26:47] <KingAragorn> I think we can discuss whether or not this should be permanent in the future
[2011-06-05 20:26:49] <Amroth> about the too big articles, I still can't view this one:
[2011-06-05 20:27:26] <Mith> Let's not worry about that too much as you deleted it!
[2011-06-05 20:27:34] <Amroth> Tough, most of it has been splitted into subpages.
[2011-06-05 20:28:05] <Mith> Alright! I shall look into it.
[2011-06-05 20:28:27] <KingAragorn> Unless there's anything else shall we move on?
[2011-06-05 20:28:38] <Ederchil> Yeah
[2011-06-05 20:28:43] <Amroth> I'm fine with moving on.
[2011-06-05 20:28:45] <Mith> Yep
[2011-06-05 20:28:50] <Gamling> Yes
[2011-06-05 20:28:58] <mithrennaith> Well, how shall we discuss letting in anonymous edits or not?
[2011-06-05 20:29:21] <KingAragorn> Well, let's get through the prepared agenda and discuss it at the end?
[2011-06-05 20:29:39] <mithrennaith> Fine with me.
[2011-06-05 20:29:48] <KingAragorn> No doubt an important discussion.
[2011-06-05 20:29:54] <KingAragorn> Right, next on the agenda is a discussion about the naming of our article(s) on The Hobbit films. All comments/thoughts welcome.
[2011-06-05 20:30:02] <KingAragorn> FYI:
[2011-06-05 20:30:24] <KingAragorn> Do we want two articles? Or one for each film and then an umbrella article for the two films?
[2011-06-05 20:30:30] <KingAragorn> Etc. et.c
[2011-06-05 20:30:32] <Ederchil> Do we need an article for the duology, and one for each individual, or do we need to split up the current one
[2011-06-05 20:30:58] <KingAragorn> The current one seems to cover the duology
[2011-06-05 20:31:02] <KingAragorn> so we could keep it at that
[2011-06-05 20:31:04] <Amroth> I think we should one for the duology, and one for each films.
[2011-06-05 20:31:05] <mithrennaith> Well, we will need separate articles for each of the two movies.
[2011-06-05 20:31:07] <KingAragorn> and then make the two other articles
[2011-06-05 20:31:12] <Amroth> Just like we have with LOTR.
[2011-06-05 20:31:39] <KingAragorn> Although, there's no official title for the duology other than The Hobbit
[2011-06-05 20:31:44] <Mith> I think we shouldn't make the two film articles *yet* (obviously we will have them in future). The reasoning is that we don't know enough about the individual films to make the individual articles worth while
[2011-06-05 20:31:54] <mithrennaith> And looking at the present article, I think there is enough to be said about the ‘duology’ (crap word, though) to have a page for it as well.
[2011-06-05 20:32:05] <Ederchil> We should at least use them in the introduction...
[2011-06-05 20:32:06] <Mith> We don't know which characters will be in which, where the storyline splits etc etc
[2011-06-05 20:32:18] <KingAragorn> Yes, this is the point
[2011-06-05 20:32:23] <KingAragorn> Is now the time?
[2011-06-05 20:32:39] <KingAragorn> Or is it an aspiration?
[2011-06-05 20:32:43] <Mith> Oh yes, they should be included in "The Hobbit films" article. But they don't need their own articles yet. They would be empty shells.
[2011-06-05 20:32:51] <Ainaldo> It probably makes sense to create stubs that refer back to the main article until details are known.
[2011-06-05 20:33:04] <mithrennaith> Again, looking at the present article, and trying to find out what should go to separate articles, I’m tempted to say ‘not yet’.
[2011-06-05 20:33:19] <Ederchil> Agree with Mithrennaith
[2011-06-05 20:33:25] <Ainaldo> At the least, if the names change before release, you can at least note there that these were announced names that were rejected. It's still lore.
[2011-06-05 20:33:28] <mithrennaith> But it might not be very long before they will be needed.
[2011-06-05 20:33:33] <mithrennaith> I estimate half a year at most.
[2011-06-05 20:33:49] <Mith> I was about to say, by Christmas we'll probably need them
[2011-06-05 20:34:15] <Amroth> I agre with Mithrennaith, but I wouldn't mind if different articles were made.
[2011-06-05 20:34:34] <mithrennaith> I think, create the article names as redirects to the umbrella article for now --
[2011-06-05 20:34:44] <Mith> +1
[2011-06-05 20:34:52] <KingAragorn> Agreed
[2011-06-05 20:34:54] <mithrennaith> -- then if anyone has a burning desire to have separate articles he can have a go.
[2011-06-05 20:35:08] <Ainaldo> Aside: Newbie question: what's the TG analog for {{citation needed}}?
[2011-06-05 20:35:18] <Ederchil> {{fact}}
[2011-06-05 20:35:19] <Mith> Ainaldo: {{fact}}
[2011-06-05 20:35:20] <Ederchil> I think
[2011-06-05 20:35:26] <mithrennaith> I think so, too.
[2011-06-05 20:35:39] <Ainaldo> Thanks.
[2011-06-05 20:36:00] <mithrennaith> Although, in some cases {{OR}} seems to be more appropriate.
[2011-06-05 20:36:07] <Ederchil> I think it's better to just slap {{sources}} at the top, because otherwise,some articles can have a {{fact}} every other sentence
[2011-06-05 20:36:17] <mithrennaith> True ...
[2011-06-05 20:36:28] <KingAragorn> Right, so is no one objecting to postponing the creation of the two individual articles?
[2011-06-05 20:36:48] -->| Morgan ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
[2011-06-05 20:36:54] <KingAragorn> You're late!
[2011-06-05 20:37:01] <KingAragorn> :P
[2011-06-05 20:37:04] <Mith> Captain Morgan!
[2011-06-05 20:37:05] <Morgan> sorry!
[2011-06-05 20:37:15] <mithrennaith> There you are!
[2011-06-05 20:37:16] <Mith> No objections here/
[2011-06-05 20:37:19] <Amroth> evening, Morgan
[2011-06-05 20:37:25] <Morgan> Thanks, hello everyody
[2011-06-05 20:37:26] <Gamling> Postponing sound good. Perhaps with a warning that this article will be updated regularly as news comes in.
[2011-06-05 20:37:28] <mithrennaith> no objections here either.
[2011-06-05 20:37:44] <KingAragorn> Agree with Gamling
[2011-06-05 20:38:06] <mithrennaith> Agree with Gamling as well.
[2011-06-05 20:38:10] <Amroth> +1 doe Gamling
[2011-06-05 20:38:14] <Amroth> for*
[2011-06-05 20:38:51] <mithrennaith> (one key too far to the left, Amroth ;) )
[2011-06-05 20:38:51] <KingAragorn> Right, next is Ainaldo's discussion about cross-referencing with
[2011-06-05 20:39:07] <Amroth> yes, I think so.
[2011-06-05 20:39:52] <Ainaldo> I'm a bit better prepared to go straight to discussing SEO
[2011-06-05 20:40:16] <Ainaldo> Does anyone have a beat on the site's analytics?
[2011-06-05 20:40:19] <KingAragorn> OK let's go onto that?
[2011-06-05 20:40:42] <KingAragorn> Hyarion does I think
[2011-06-05 20:41:07] <Ainaldo> I'm using for, as well as Google Webmaster Tools to track what searches are performing well
[2011-06-05 20:41:34] <Ainaldo> I've used on other sites too. It would be great to get a monthly report or access to that data.
[2011-06-05 20:42:21] <KingAragorn> Hyarion definitely uses some kind of analytics, I have no idea what he uses or how to access that data
[2011-06-05 20:42:42] <Ainaldo> Ah, well. Probably a topic that should wait for his arrival.
[2011-06-05 20:43:08] <KingAragorn> OK, next is Mith's discussion on 'Calendars - "Date Month" (British, European and ROW - mostly - usage) or "Month Date" (American, and TG's current, usage)? '
[2011-06-05 20:43:36] <Ederchil> I think Month Date works better for categorizing and stuff
[2011-06-05 20:45:08] <mithrennaith> I’m a bit undecided ...
[2011-06-05 20:45:34] <Morgan> I believe I'm to blame for adding a lot of "Date Month" (been reading, and refering, too much of Hammond & Scull!)
[2011-06-05 20:45:36] <Amroth> I'm too.
[2011-06-05 20:45:51] <Mith> I use Date Month and I noticed a lot of others do too
[2011-06-05 20:45:59] <mithrennaith> On principle, my opinion is that either British style dates or ISO dates are logical, American style are not.
[2011-06-05 20:46:01] <Mith> I think Amroth does and Morgan
[2011-06-05 20:46:09] <Amroth> I also have used "Date Moth" always.
[2011-06-05 20:46:31] <Morgan> A "problem" is, that you have to do [[Month Date|Date Month]] when creating an internal link
[2011-06-05 20:46:53] <Morgan> not a big deal of problem, but...
[2011-06-05 20:47:13] <Ederchil> or maybe a template? {{d|April|17}}?
[2011-06-05 20:47:13] <Mith> I think the categorising problem is easily solved with {{DEFAULTSORT}} I am making it my mission to sort out date articles
[2011-06-05 20:47:19] <mithrennaith> Yet when I’m just writing on talk pages I will sometimes use ‘Month Date’ as well - it does feel comfortable in English.
[2011-06-05 20:47:38] <mithrennaith> (It was used a lot in Britain formerly as well, I think).
[2011-06-05 20:47:58] <mithrennaith> And there is the point that Morgan and Ederchil are making.
[2011-06-05 20:48:34] <mithrennaith> Although Mith’s suggestion would solve that.
[2011-06-05 20:49:45] <mithrennaith> My basic instinct is still to go with Mith and prefer British style dating (which is also the only one that we use in Dutch, or in most of continental Europe, for that matter).
[2011-06-05 20:50:06] <KingAragorn> The British system is the most logical IMO
[2011-06-05 20:50:19] <Amroth> I don't really mind about with style we use.
[2011-06-05 20:50:25] <Gamling> We don't have to redo the dating format for nearly all of the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, do we?
[2011-06-05 20:50:47] <Morgan> I believe it's tricky to start debating which style is more "logical" (since it will come down to personal taste) - it's better to discuss if (a) we desire a standard, and if so (b) which to use (which might come down to personal taste..!)
[2011-06-05 20:50:52] <Mith> FYI, without exaggeration 10 times the population of the world use British style over American:
[2011-06-05 20:52:13] <mithrennaith> Well, without doubt we do need a standard for naming all the date articles, so we can’t really dodge it.
[2011-06-05 20:52:29] <Mith> Yes. Let's know what we're doing
[2011-06-05 20:53:48] <Morgan> Gamling: I think a bot could automatically change all the dates (if we decide on it) - won't it?
[2011-06-05 20:54:06] <Ederchil> It'll be tricky coding
[2011-06-05 20:54:08] <KingAragorn> So, is anyone opposed to this proposal?
[2011-06-05 20:54:22] <Ederchil> Nope
[2011-06-05 20:54:30] <mithrennaith> Neither
[2011-06-05 20:54:35] <Gamling> Not me.
[2011-06-05 20:54:42] <Ainaldo> Two things need to be accounted for: the author was British; we should strive for consistency with his style, or at least strive not to be inconsistent. Also, given that there are a couple Americans reading and editing, we should have ways to avoid confusing them in place, as well as ways to usher them into using a style that is not confusing.
[2011-06-05 20:55:13] <Ederchil> I don't think it would be that confusing
[2011-06-05 20:55:43] <mithrennaith> As long as month names are written out (and that is the unspoken standard at TG) there is no confusion.
[2011-06-05 20:55:50] <Ainaldo> Agreed.
[2011-06-05 20:56:02] <mithrennaith> Confusion starts with ‘9/11’
[2011-06-05 20:56:07] <Morgan> Exactly
[2011-06-05 20:56:28] <Ederchil> I've heard people call it November 11.
[2011-06-05 20:56:45] <mithrennaith> But it should be addressed in the Manual of Style.
[2011-06-05 20:56:52] <Morgan> yep
[2011-06-05 20:56:55] <Ederchil> Obviously
[2011-06-05 20:57:16] <Amroth> yes
[2011-06-05 20:58:32] <Morgan> So, would then all the date articles have to be moved? "January 1" -> "1 January"?
[2011-06-05 20:58:45] <KingAragorn> I presume so
[2011-06-05 20:59:14] <KingAragorn> Right, shall we move on?
[2011-06-05 20:59:17] <Morgan> It's a huge work!
[2011-06-05 20:59:27] <mithrennaith> AS to Tolkien’s own usage ..
[2011-06-05 20:59:52] <mithrennaith> In the published Letters all dates, even when T’s own headings are quoted --
[2011-06-05 21:00:02] <mithrennaith> -- have been regularised to D M Y.
[2011-06-05 21:00:24] <mithrennaith> But many examples I have seen show that T himself mostly used M D, Y !
[2011-06-05 21:01:26] <Morgan> It seems to vary:
[2011-06-05 21:01:45] <Gamling> So it would almost be a tribute to Tolkien to be inconsistent since he was so often inconsistent (in this and many other things).
[2011-06-05 21:01:48] <mithrennaith> That’s why I said that ‘British’ usage is actually relatively recent in Britain.
[2011-06-05 21:02:13] <Morgan> Gamling: haha, it's a good point!
[2011-06-05 21:02:20] <Morgan> ;-)
[2011-06-05 21:02:21] <mithrennaith> :)
[2011-06-05 21:02:48] <mithrennaith> Where you going to give examples, Morgan?
[2011-06-05 21:03:09] <Morgan> Yeah, I've been checking the images of letters we have on TG
[2011-06-05 21:03:20] <Morgan> but actually I've only found Day Month Year, so far
[2011-06-05 21:03:32] <Morgan>
[2011-06-05 21:03:44] <Morgan> Oh, here is one:
[2011-06-05 21:03:45] <Morgan>
[2011-06-05 21:03:51] <Morgan> Month Date Year
[2011-06-05 21:04:03] <Amroth> The image does't work for me.
[2011-06-05 21:04:21] <Morgan> Authenticity: Medium ^^
[2011-06-05 21:05:12] <Morgan> Here's another Month Date Year:
[2011-06-05 21:05:12] <Morgan>
[2011-06-05 21:05:24] <Morgan> (can you follow the links, or is only Amroth?)
[2011-06-05 21:05:26] <KingAragorn> I fear we're moving further away from a decision
[2011-06-05 21:05:27] <Morgan> *it
[2011-06-05 21:05:43] <Mith> They all work for me
[2011-06-05 21:05:50] <Amroth> yes, but I get:
[2011-06-05 21:05:53] <Amroth> No file by this name exists, but you can upload one.
[2011-06-05 21:06:07] <mithrennaith> Add _(1).jpg
[2011-06-05 21:06:17] <mithrennaith> I can follow them with difficulty.
[2011-06-05 21:06:39] <mithrennaith> Well, put it this way: How important is Tolkien’s usage for the decision?
[2011-06-05 21:06:53] <Mith> Minor
[2011-06-05 21:06:54] <Ederchil> Well, the top four images in the category have 2/2
[2011-06-05 21:07:01] <Ederchil> Not really
[2011-06-05 21:07:07] <Amroth> it works now.
[2011-06-05 21:07:08] <Morgan> Yeah, it's different on a wiki, I guess we need to be consistent in order to have a useful database
[2011-06-05 21:07:11] <Amroth> Thanks, Morgan.
[2011-06-05 21:07:17] <mithrennaith> I think we almost reached one without actuall adressing Tolkien’s usage, so we might keep it at that.
[2011-06-05 21:07:29] <Mith> So Date Month is on?
[2011-06-05 21:07:38] <KingAragorn> Yes.
[2011-06-05 21:07:40] <mithrennaith> Agreed.
[2011-06-05 21:07:42] <Morgan> yes
[2011-06-05 21:07:43] <Gamling> I vote for Date Month.
[2011-06-05 21:07:51] <Ederchil> Date Month
[2011-06-05 21:07:56] <Mith> It's on like Donkey Kong!
[2011-06-05 21:08:04] <Mith> I shall get that sorted over the next week or so.
[2011-06-05 21:08:16] <Mith> Mithbot shall work his cotton socks off
[2011-06-05 21:08:16] <KingAragorn> Next on the agenda is Morgan's discussion on 'The pronunciation guides for Elvish words - keep or remove? '
[2011-06-05 21:08:27] <Morgan> Mith: good, I was just going to ask who would be interested in sorting it out :P
[2011-06-05 21:08:31] <Ederchil> The IPA?
[2011-06-05 21:08:34] <Morgan> yes
[2011-06-05 21:08:36] <Mith> Get rid
[2011-06-05 21:08:45] <mithrennaith> negative
[2011-06-05 21:09:04] <Morgan> Mithrennaith: to the IPA or to Mith's suggestion?
[2011-06-05 21:09:12] <Ederchil> well, I think if we keep it, it should be in the etymology section
[2011-06-05 21:09:14] <mithrennaith> To Mith’s
[2011-06-05 21:10:02] <Morgan> Agree with Ederchil (although I'm not very keen on keeping them, unless they are referenced)
[2011-06-05 21:10:22] <mithrennaith> IPA may not be that well known to general public, but it is the only system that is understood fairly worldwide.
[2011-06-05 21:10:33] <Mith> Gilgamesh used unnecessarily complicated notation for his IPA so you have to be an expert to read them. What would be far mroe useful would be a sort of English pronunciation guide "KEER-dan" for Círdan, for exmaple.
[2011-06-05 21:10:34] <Amroth> When they are referenced, I think we should keep them.
[2011-06-05 21:10:47] <Amroth> If not, than not or as OR.
[2011-06-05 21:10:49] <Ederchil> true, but it just mucks up the introduction
[2011-06-05 21:11:03] <Ederchil> Or we use both?
[2011-06-05 21:11:16] <Morgan> yeah, why not both?
[2011-06-05 21:11:19] <Mith> I don't mind if he used *normal* IPA. He - by his own admission - made them ridiculously complicated
[2011-06-05 21:11:21] <mithrennaith> It’s good dictionary/encyclopedia practice to have them in the introduction.
[2011-06-05 21:11:39] <Ederchil> yes, but it clashes with the birth years
[2011-06-05 21:11:45] <Mith> Could always shove them in infoboxes if locations is the problem
[2011-06-05 21:11:50] <mithrennaith> I somewhat agree with Mith on Gilgamesh’s complicated style.
[2011-06-05 21:12:18] <mithrennaith> Infoboxes might be a solution - but not all elvish words have infoboxes.
[2011-06-05 21:12:38] <Mith> Well, people do (or should) so it would resolve the birth/pronunciation thing
[2011-06-05 21:12:57] <Morgan> Is anyone knowledgable enough on Elvish pronounciation to to tell if Gilgamesh did a good job? (Gilgamesh had stopped editing when I became a regular at TG, so have no experience of his/her knowledge)
[2011-06-05 21:12:58] <mithrennaith> Morgan raised references - that is a different issue
[2011-06-05 21:13:41] <Mith> I don't think he did.
[2011-06-05 21:13:46] <mithrennaith> Ordinarily I would automatically say, yes, references are necessary.
[2011-06-05 21:14:02] <Ederchil> most would be references to Appendix E
[2011-06-05 21:14:05] <Ainaldo> Morgan: can you provide a link to a page with Gilgamesh's pronunciation.
[2011-06-05 21:14:08] <Mith> If it's Quenya or Sindarin, for the vast majority you can just reference AppE?
[2011-06-05 21:14:24] <mithrennaith> [Morgan: ‘ (although I'm not very keen on keeping them, unless they are referenced)’]
[2011-06-05 21:14:40] <mithrennaith> Ederchil: exactly my point.
[2011-06-05 21:14:42] <Morgan>
[2011-06-05 21:14:50] <Morgan> (I moved the IPA to the Etymology section)
[2011-06-05 21:15:21] <Mith> Does this conversation go for the media files, too
[2011-06-05 21:15:30] <Mith> You can find all his IPAs here
[2011-06-05 21:15:32] <Mith>
[2011-06-05 21:15:34] <Morgan> I've never listened to them
[2011-06-05 21:15:39] <Morgan> actually
[2011-06-05 21:15:41] <Ederchil> in a sense, yes. Though I have never listened to them
[2011-06-05 21:15:48] <Morgan> :)
[2011-06-05 21:15:51] <mithrennaith> Ah, you’re talking soundfiles now!
[2011-06-05 21:16:20] <Mith> OK let's untangle this web
[2011-06-05 21:16:32] <Mith> Do we want to keep IPA as a matter of principle?
[2011-06-05 21:16:48] <Amroth> I did a few times, before I became member.
[2011-06-05 21:17:09] <Ederchil> I think it does add to the encyclopedic nature
[2011-06-05 21:17:28] <mithrennaith> +1
[2011-06-05 21:17:54] <Morgan> Yes, IF we somehow tell the readers where this info can be found (it could be that the IPA is an internal link to an article, which cites Appendix E, if you understand what I mean)
[2011-06-05 21:17:57] <Mith> In which case, we all need to be better trained in how to implement it.
[2011-06-05 21:18:08] <Amroth> +1 for Ederchil
[2011-06-05 21:18:13] <Mith> Do we want these with my KEER-dan Simple English guide?
[2011-06-05 21:18:28] <Ainaldo> The proununciation of Taniquetil is accurate, right down to the stress on the penultimate long sylable, which is long because it ends with a consonant instead of an explicit long vowel.
[2011-06-05 21:18:41] <Ederchil> Cirdan ([IPA: so and so], "KEER-dan)
[2011-06-05 21:19:32] <Morgan> Did Gilgamesh "steal" the IPAs from Ardalambion or something similar, or were they is own creation?
[2011-06-05 21:19:33] <Ainaldo> Anglophones are useful, even though they're inaccurate.
[2011-06-05 21:19:42] <mithrennaith> I once saw an English dictionary that did it like Ederchil’s example. I think that wouldn‘t be a bad idea.
[2011-06-05 21:19:48] <Gamling> I like Ederchil's example. IPA if we have it; simple English too as it is helpful.
[2011-06-05 21:19:59] <Morgan> Yes, I agree on the double solution
[2011-06-05 21:20:02] <Mith> Ederchil's example was what I was hinting at, yeah
[2011-06-05 21:20:04] <Mith> OK
[2011-06-05 21:20:09] <Mith> Do we want them on line 1
[2011-06-05 21:20:10] <Amroth> I agree with that too.
[2011-06-05 21:20:19] <Morgan> No
[2011-06-05 21:20:22] <Ederchil> No to line 1
[2011-06-05 21:20:29] <Mith> Morgan: I believe Gilgamesh made them all himself
[2011-06-05 21:20:31] <Morgan> (to line 1)
[2011-06-05 21:20:53] <mithrennaith> Also, Morgan’s proposal for a link to an article that describes pronunciation (mainly from app E.) sounds good to me.
[2011-06-05 21:21:04] <Mith> We have Tolkien Gateway:IPA
[2011-06-05 21:21:08] <Mith> We could beef that up
[2011-06-05 21:21:16] <Mith> Make it proper explanation
[2011-06-05 21:21:21] <Mith> (Of source)
[2011-06-05 21:21:28] <Ainaldo> I think Gilgamesh knew what he was talking about.
[2011-06-05 21:22:06] <mithrennaith> It could also have a link to an external description of the IPA (on the SIL site e.g.) and to Ardalambion’s explanations on pronunciation.
[2011-06-05 21:22:19] <Morgan> sure
[2011-06-05 21:22:34] <mithrennaith> I also think Gil~ knew what he was talking about, even if he made it over-complicated.
[2011-06-05 21:22:42] <Ederchil> Or we could have out own Project page
[2011-06-05 21:23:13] <mithrennaith> I’m not prepared to fight for a place in the introduction, as the majority here doesn’t deem to want it --
[2011-06-05 21:23:15] <Ainaldo> The IPA can be algorithmically generated, I think.
[2011-06-05 21:23:30] <mithrennaith> -- but phonology is definitely not etymology!
[2011-06-05 21:23:49] <Mith> So where should pronunciations be? In infobox or with etymology?
[2011-06-05 21:23:58] <Morgan> I liked Mith's idea of putting the IPA in an infobox template. But what to do with pages without infobox?
[2011-06-05 21:23:59] <Mith> "Etymology and Pronunciation" section?
[2011-06-05 21:24:06] <Amroth> I think introduciton or infobox.
[2011-06-05 21:24:09] <Amroth> introduction*
[2011-06-05 21:24:58] <mithrennaith> Mith’s suggestion could be sensible, even though I think Amroth’s is more encyclopedic.
[2011-06-05 21:25:00] <KingAragorn> Infobox
[2011-06-05 21:25:42] <Mith> Shall we vote?
[2011-06-05 21:25:43] <mithrennaith> [Right, now the Flemish crime series starts on tv, so I can start wondering how that would look in IPA ;)]
[2011-06-05 21:25:45] <Morgan> As Mithrennaith raised the subject - the naming of the "Etymology-section" is another issue which I would like to adress at some point (now?) - right now we have a very broad definition of "Etymology" - we include other names, titles, etc, which strictly speaking ahs nothing to do with "etymology"
[2011-06-05 21:26:16] <mithrennaith> What if an article has no infobox?
[2011-06-05 21:26:18] <KingAragorn> Good point Morgan
[2011-06-05 21:26:19] <Mith> Morgan: I separate Other Names and Titles from Etymology (and have always done).
[2011-06-05 21:26:20] <Morgan> (nto always, but often)
[2011-06-05 21:26:28] <mithrennaith> Do we force one on every Elvish word.
[2011-06-05 21:26:43] <Mith> Hang on woah woah woah
[2011-06-05 21:26:47] <Mith> Let's park Etymology
[2011-06-05 21:26:49] <mithrennaith> Agree with Mith on separation.
[2011-06-05 21:26:55] <Mith> Finish off IPA
[2011-06-05 21:27:01] <Morgan> no problem! ;-)
[2011-06-05 21:27:01] <Mith> Are we decided on both in infobox?
[2011-06-05 21:27:10] <Amroth> I+1 for Mith (for the etymology)
[2011-06-05 21:27:14] <Mith> both forms that is
[2011-06-05 21:27:20] <mithrennaith> In principle yes.
[2011-06-05 21:27:44] =-= mithrennaith is now known as mithrennaith_afk
[2011-06-05 21:27:48] <Mith> Gamling, do you have any views?
[2011-06-05 21:28:04] <Gamling> I've been trying to decide.
[2011-06-05 21:28:19] <Gamling> I like in the introduction, but...
[2011-06-05 21:28:54] <Gamling> In the Infobox would be OK with me.
[2011-06-05 21:28:55] =-= mithrennaith_afk is now known as mithrennaith
[2011-06-05 21:29:02] <KingAragorn> It looks snazzy in the introduction to be honest, but it's perhaps more appropriate elsewhere
[2011-06-05 21:29:46] <mithrennaith> but I still think we need a decision on what to do if the article has no infobox.
[2011-06-05 21:30:12] <Ederchil> come up with an infobox for it
[2011-06-05 21:30:21] <Morgan> A very closely related question is also if the language name should be in the introduction - Gilgamesh's introductions often contain "([Language] [IPA])"
[2011-06-05 21:30:22] <mithrennaith> ;)
[2011-06-05 21:30:44] <mithrennaith> That is a well accepted format in linguistics.
[2011-06-05 21:30:49] <Morgan> Ederchil: like a separate infobox for IPA and soundfiles?
[2011-06-05 21:31:04] <mithrennaith> That would also be possible.
[2011-06-05 21:31:18] <mithrennaith> I’m still iffy about soundfiles --
[2011-06-05 21:31:24] <Ainaldo> They're useful.
[2011-06-05 21:31:39] <mithrennaith> -- I like them, and Gilgamesh’s are correct, --
[2011-06-05 21:31:41] <Ainaldo> I've definitely listened to them in my travels. You certainly can't find anything like that anywhere else.
[2011-06-05 21:31:43] <Ederchil> I think that may prove a wreck for sources. Thranduil (Sylvan[1]: [IPA:so and so][2] [Thandooil])[3]
[2011-06-05 21:32:00] <KingAragorn> I think the sound files are fantastic
[2011-06-05 21:32:09] <Morgan> Yeah, perhaps only language when it's very clear
[2011-06-05 21:32:10] <Ederchil> Morgan - it was more of a joke, but it sounds good
[2011-06-05 21:32:14] <mithrennaith> -- but there are simply no native speakers, anyone is going to have their native accent peeping through somehow --=
[2011-06-05 21:32:29] <Morgan> I'm all for keeping the soundflies why not?
[2011-06-05 21:32:47] <KingAragorn> We could certainly create an infobox like it, or extend the sound file infobox (for instances where the article has the sound file and the IPA)
[2011-06-05 21:33:01] <Ainaldo> I know I'm not a voting member here, but I prefer the eyncylopedia style, with the pronunciation guides in the lede.
[2011-06-05 21:33:09] <mithrennaith> -- and we might end up with a lot of pronunciation soundfiles with a plethora of different accents.
[2011-06-05 21:33:16] <Amroth> I'm for keeping the soundfiles.
[2011-06-05 21:33:17] <KingAragorn> No one is disenfranchised here!
[2011-06-05 21:33:17] <Morgan> well, true
[2011-06-05 21:33:23] <Ederchil> everyone's a voting member here
[2011-06-05 21:33:45] <Mith> Let's vote
[2011-06-05 21:34:05] <mithrennaith> On balance I’m for keeping the soundfiles, but if in any future there is going to be a drive to generate more we’ll have to be careful.
[2011-06-05 21:34:05] <KingAragorn> OK
[2011-06-05 21:34:07] <Ainaldo> I'm not particularly bothered by having more than one pronunciation guide either. Even for the ridiculously multi-named folks.
[2011-06-05 21:34:18] <mithrennaith> ;) ;)
[2011-06-05 21:34:26] <Gamling> Keep the soundfiles.
[2011-06-05 21:34:31] <Mith> "Lead" "Infobox", "Etymology" or "Infobox for Peeps/Places and Lead for Non" (we'll call that IFP)
[2011-06-05 21:34:32] <Ederchil> We only need pronunciation for the pagename there.
[2011-06-05 21:34:39] <Ainaldo> yes.
[2011-06-05 21:34:51] <mithrennaith> One vote at a time, let KA propose.
[2011-06-05 21:35:15] <Ederchil> preferably Etymology and Infobox.
[2011-06-05 21:35:58] <Ederchil> We can work around the sourcing problem in the lead by putting the sources in the infobox only
[2011-06-05 21:36:25] <Morgan> What is meant by "lead" here?
[2011-06-05 21:36:33] <mithrennaith> Introduction
[2011-06-05 21:36:36] <Ederchil> Intro
[2011-06-05 21:36:52] <KingAragorn> OK, we've discussed this at length
[2011-06-05 21:37:54] <KingAragorn> And we've come to a general agreement (I think)
[2011-06-05 21:38:08] <Mith> What is it?
[2011-06-05 21:38:47] <mithrennaith> ? ;)
[2011-06-05 21:39:20] <Morgan> I think we still haven't agreed on if the IPAs should be removed from the lead (though we could just vote on it, of course)
[2011-06-05 21:39:40] <Mith> Yes, I really want to move on to the next items
[2011-06-05 21:39:53] <Amroth> I too
[2011-06-05 21:39:54] <Ederchil> brb
[2011-06-05 21:40:30] <Ainaldo> Alas, I must leave.
[2011-06-05 21:40:50] <Gamling> @Ainaldo - Goodbye
[2011-06-05 21:40:50] <Ainaldo> As a parting word, I would love to participate in a mailing list for this community.
[2011-06-05 21:40:57] <Morgan> bye!
[2011-06-05 21:41:03] <Amroth> Bye, Ainaldo
[2011-06-05 21:41:03] <Ainaldo> I'm sure we have more than enough to discuss asynchronously.
[2011-06-05 21:41:05] <mithrennaith> Sorry to see you go, Ainaldo - Bye!
[2011-06-05 21:41:09] <KingAragorn> Bye!
[2011-06-05 21:41:11] <Morgan> Or, to get the forum workin!
[2011-06-05 21:41:21] <mithrennaith> Indeed ^^
[2011-06-05 21:41:43] <Ainaldo> I honestly wouldn't participate on a forum.
[2011-06-05 21:41:47] <KingAragorn> OK, all those in favour of removing IPA from the lead sentence say aye
[2011-06-05 21:42:01] <Gamling> Aye
[2011-06-05 21:42:03] <Ainaldo> Nay
[2011-06-05 21:42:05] <Mith> Ainaldo, you can come in chat anytime
[2011-06-05 21:42:10] <Amroth> Nay
[2011-06-05 21:42:31] * Mith abstain
[2011-06-05 21:42:32] <Morgan> I put my vote down - can't decide yet
[2011-06-05 21:42:49] <mithrennaith> I say no as well, but qualified - I would support Mith’s ‘IFP’.
[2011-06-05 21:43:14] <mithrennaith> That is, IPA in lead only if there is no Infobox.
[2011-06-05 21:43:24] <KingAragorn> OK, the nos have it
[2011-06-05 21:43:31] <KingAragorn> IPA stays in the lead sentence
[2011-06-05 21:43:32] <Ederchil> abstain too
[2011-06-05 21:43:49] <KingAragorn> Do we want to vote on including it elsewhere too?
[2011-06-05 21:44:00] <Ederchil> why not
[2011-06-05 21:44:09] <Mith> It's like Switzerland
[2011-06-05 21:44:17] <mithrennaith> :D
[2011-06-05 21:44:28] <Morgan> haha!
[2011-06-05 21:44:37] <Amroth> We only need to have chocolate.
[2011-06-05 21:44:43] <Mith> Nay to doubling up.
[2011-06-05 21:44:57] <Ederchil> define doubling up?
[2011-06-05 21:44:58] <mithrennaith> I also say Nay to doubling up.
[2011-06-05 21:45:08] <Mith> In more than one place
[2011-06-05 21:45:09] <KingAragorn> OK, all those in favour of including IPA in it's own header/under the etymology header say aye.
[2011-06-05 21:45:25] <KingAragorn> I presume you're all nay sayers then
[2011-06-05 21:45:32] <mithrennaith> indeed.
[2011-06-05 21:45:35] <Morgan> +1
[2011-06-05 21:45:41] <Amroth> +2
[2011-06-05 21:45:42] <Gamling> agreed
[2011-06-05 21:45:51] <KingAragorn> OK
[2011-06-05 21:45:55] <KingAragorn> that's sorted then
[2011-06-05 21:46:01] <Morgan> +2? :D
[2011-06-05 21:46:01] <Ederchil> only for other names
[2011-06-05 21:46:25] <Mith> Morgan, Amroth has multiple personality disorder
[2011-06-05 21:46:39] <Morgan> Sorry Amroth: I also want to have two votes! ;-)
[2011-06-05 21:46:51] <mithrennaith> :D
[2011-06-05 21:47:06] <Mith> What's next, Mr Speaker?
[2011-06-05 21:47:08] <Amroth> I can see why ;)
[2011-06-05 21:47:20] <KingAragorn> OK, the next item would have been Family trees from Amaniar, but he's not here. Nor do we know what we are meant to discuss.
[2011-06-05 21:47:30] <KingAragorn> So Amroth you're next with PDF files.
[2011-06-05 21:47:35] <Morgan> Who suggested the topic?
[2011-06-05 21:47:51] <Amroth> Would it be possible to add .pdf to the permitted files.
[2011-06-05 21:47:54] <Ederchil> maybe the not being able to edit part?
[2011-06-05 21:48:03] <Ederchil> Amroth, technically, yes
[2011-06-05 21:48:12] <Mith> YEs, I could do it in about 20 seconds for you.
[2011-06-05 21:48:27] <Mith> What I would like to know is why you would want to upload PDFs
[2011-06-05 21:48:28] <Morgan> (oh - Amaniar :P)
[2011-06-05 21:48:29] <KingAragorn> What would we need to host PDFs for?
[2011-06-05 21:48:59] <Amroth> maybe for the OR.
[2011-06-05 21:49:11] <mithrennaith> :)
[2011-06-05 21:49:44] <Amroth> So if a scholar would want to upload his work here, he could do without that people are free to copy it.
[2011-06-05 21:50:05] <Morgan> I think it would be better to provide an external link to something like a blog or similar, which are easy to create for anyone
[2011-06-05 21:50:16] <mithrennaith> Agree Morgan.
[2011-06-05 21:50:49] <KingAragorn> I'm not convinced Amroth, unless you're anxious to upload a PDF yourself?
[2011-06-05 21:50:52] <Ederchil> Agree w/ Morgan
[2011-06-05 21:50:56] <mithrennaith> That way, there is no problem with the GFDL.
[2011-06-05 21:51:36] <Amroth> I hadn't plans to upload PDFs.
[2011-06-05 21:51:45] * Mith abstains.
[2011-06-05 21:51:49] <Amroth> didn't have*
[2011-06-05 21:52:11] <KingAragorn> If anyone ever has a PDF that they need to upload they can ask Mith or Hyarion at that time
[2011-06-05 21:52:48] <Mith> For a small fee.
[2011-06-05 21:53:05] <KingAragorn> Don't go to Mith
[2011-06-05 21:53:09] <Morgan> Having finished PDFs sort of goes against the "wiki"-idea, where everything is open for edits
[2011-06-05 21:53:12] <Mith> Haha
[2011-06-05 21:53:59] <Mith> I think it's a pretty clear-cut decision here
[2011-06-05 21:54:07] <Ederchil> no need
[2011-06-05 21:54:07] <Amroth> You've a point there, Morgan.
[2011-06-05 21:54:07] <mithrennaith> Yes.
[2011-06-05 21:54:59] <KingAragorn> OK, next is Amroth with People by nationality.
[2011-06-05 21:55:14] <Amroth>
[2011-06-05 21:55:19] <Morgan> Mith abstains from discussion here
[2011-06-05 21:55:44] <Amroth> I saw in this category that Hong Kong did have it's own category.
[2011-06-05 21:56:17] <Ederchil> yeah, I wasn't too sure about that. Merge with Chinese?
[2011-06-05 21:56:24] <Amroth> While it's not a country, although it has a special status.
[2011-06-05 21:56:39] <Mith> A nation doesn't have to be a country
[2011-06-05 21:56:50] <Amroth> True, true.
[2011-06-05 21:56:58] <KingAragorn> Hongkongese
[2011-06-05 21:57:02] <Ederchil> I actually spent quite some time looking for the proper name of people from Hong Kong.
[2011-06-05 21:57:30] <Amroth> And a country can be part of a bigger country.
[2011-06-05 21:57:42] <Amroth> For example, Sint-Maarten in the Netherlands.
[2011-06-05 21:57:42] <KingAragorn> Wikipedia says that Honkers is acceptable
[2011-06-05 21:57:53] <mithrennaith> I was wondering if there actually technically is a different nationality for Hong Kong in international law still ...
[2011-06-05 21:57:57] <KingAragorn> "The terms Hong Konger (or Hongkonger), Hong Kong People, Hongkongese, Honkers, are all translated into the Cantonese term of Hèung Góng Yàhn "
[2011-06-05 21:58:31] <Mith> The legal and political framework remains semi-British
[2011-06-05 21:59:02] <mithrennaith> Yes okay, but on that principle we have to split British in to English, Scots, Welsh and NI.
[2011-06-05 21:59:12] <mithrennaith> They still all carry the same passports.
[2011-06-05 21:59:16] <Ederchil> which is going to be a pain
[2011-06-05 21:59:36] <Mith> Yeah but it's not one nation!
[2011-06-05 21:59:46] <Mith> This is not People by nationality
[2011-06-05 21:59:51] <Mith> This is pepole by citizenship
[2011-06-05 22:00:02] <Ederchil> we can move that
[2011-06-05 22:00:34] <Mith> So we are debating herE? Just Hong Kong?
[2011-06-05 22:01:01] <Mith> If this is people by nationality, let Hong Kong be. If this is people by citizenship, merge with China
[2011-06-05 22:01:02] <Ederchil> And English and Welsh and Scotch and N-Irl
[2011-06-05 22:01:21] <Mith> Some Brits identify as British and not EWNSI
[2011-06-05 22:01:27] <Mith> EWSNI*
[2011-06-05 22:01:36] <Mith> You need all five
[2011-06-05 22:01:48] <KingAragorn> And some don't even know what the UK is
[2011-06-05 22:02:12] <Morgan> Isn't it the same as Great Britain? ;-)
[2011-06-05 22:02:17] <Mith> NO!
[2011-06-05 22:02:18] <KingAragorn> No
[2011-06-05 22:02:22] <Ederchil> No, it's not
[2011-06-05 22:02:26] <Mith> Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales
[2011-06-05 22:02:27] <Morgan> Just kiddin'
[2011-06-05 22:02:28] <Gamling> It's Arnor and Gondor put back together.
[2011-06-05 22:02:38] <mithrennaith> Where is that explanation on the internet ....
[2011-06-05 22:02:39] <Ederchil> It's got something to do with Northern Ireland
[2011-06-05 22:02:47] <Mith> UK is England Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland
[2011-06-05 22:02:58] <Mith> The office name of the UK is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
[2011-06-05 22:02:59] <Morgan> (mith and KingAragorn has already given me the homework before...)
[2011-06-05 22:03:01] <Morgan> *have
[2011-06-05 22:03:05] <Amroth> It's Belgium and Netherlands together :P
[2011-06-05 22:03:07] <Mith> Now what are we doing
[2011-06-05 22:03:08] <KingAragorn> It was great fun
[2011-06-05 22:03:19] <Ederchil> I don't want Belgium
[2011-06-05 22:03:22] <KingAragorn> My fault for going off track
[2011-06-05 22:03:32] <Mith> The Belgians don't want Belgium
[2011-06-05 22:03:33] <Ederchil> More leeches for our gas money
[2011-06-05 22:03:44] <Amroth> But they've good chocolate! :8
[2011-06-05 22:04:01] <KingAragorn> So are we agreed that we're going to change People by nationality to People by citizenship?
[2011-06-05 22:04:02] <Ederchil> so do the Swiss
[2011-06-05 22:04:09] <Mith> Aye
[2011-06-05 22:04:13] <KingAragorn> English chocolate is the best
[2011-06-05 22:04:14] <Gamling> Yes
[2011-06-05 22:04:14] <Ederchil> aye
[2011-06-05 22:04:19] <Morgan> So, is it only the Brits (and their former colonies) which give us trouble with the Category:People by nationality?
[2011-06-05 22:04:20] <mithrennaith> Aye - I think
[2011-06-05 22:04:34] <Amroth> But if it is moved to citizenship, wouldn't there be a Europian citizenship?
[2011-06-05 22:04:35] <Mith> What about the Basque?
[2011-06-05 22:04:38] <Amroth>
[2011-06-05 22:04:40] <Ederchil> another point though: what does this do to naturalized people
[2011-06-05 22:04:44] <KingAragorn> Forget Europe
[2011-06-05 22:04:52] <Mith> We don't like Europe
[2011-06-05 22:04:57] <Morgan> Category:Naturalized people
[2011-06-05 22:05:00] <Ederchil> For example, Bakshi is an American born in Israel
[2011-06-05 22:05:13] <Mith> Both
[2011-06-05 22:05:13] <KingAragorn> No one in the UK would identify with European citizenship
[2011-06-05 22:05:18] <Morgan> Both
[2011-06-05 22:05:34] <Amroth> What with people with an citizenship that doesn't excist anumore.
[2011-06-05 22:05:46] <Mith> Stateless?
[2011-06-05 22:05:53] <Mith> I don't think that's a problem we'll encounter
[2011-06-05 22:06:00] <Gamling> Like Tolkien and the Orange Free State?
[2011-06-05 22:06:01] <Mith> Unless Palestine counts
[2011-06-05 22:06:02] <Morgan> Category:People with a citizenship that doesnät exist aymore
[2011-06-05 22:06:19] <KingAragorn> Orange Free State would count as British
[2011-06-05 22:06:21] <KingAragorn> tehcnically
[2011-06-05 22:06:27] <Ederchil> those smileys show up in the weirdest places
[2011-06-05 22:06:37] <Mith> +1 KA
[2011-06-05 22:06:46] <Mith> British nationality law is very odd
[2011-06-05 22:06:54] <Ederchil> Not English?
[2011-06-05 22:07:06] <Amroth>
[2011-06-05 22:07:07] <Mith> There has never been an English nationality law
[2011-06-05 22:07:46] <mithrennaith> what Amroth says ...
[2011-06-05 22:07:52] <Morgan> (is this our last topic in the meeting?)
[2011-06-05 22:07:55] <mithrennaith> I feel this is a minefield ....
[2011-06-05 22:07:57] <Amroth> yes
[2011-06-05 22:07:58] <Mith> Sorry, this means nothing to me
[2011-06-05 22:08:08] <Mith> I thought we decided!
[2011-06-05 22:08:09] <Ederchil> Antillians are Dutch
[2011-06-05 22:08:17] <Ederchil> At least, they get our tax money.
[2011-06-05 22:08:23] <Mith> Let's just say
[2011-06-05 22:08:32] <Mith> We get any special cases we'lll debate them then
[2011-06-05 22:08:38] <Amroth> On Saba, St-Eustace and Bonaire yes, at the others not,
[2011-06-05 22:08:38] <KingAragorn> We can discuss the debate about anon editors now if you want.
[2011-06-05 22:08:42] <Mith> The last item is really important
[2011-06-05 22:08:51] <mithrennaith> quite.
[2011-06-05 22:08:56] <Amroth> I've to go
[2011-06-05 22:09:00] <Amroth> Bye
[2011-06-05 22:09:01] <Morgan> bye!
[2011-06-05 22:09:01] |<-- Amroth has left (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
[2011-06-05 22:09:04] <Mith> Bye!
[2011-06-05 22:09:04] <Ederchil> good night
[2011-06-05 22:09:26] <KingAragorn> I'm in favour of re-opening the wiki to anon editors
[2011-06-05 22:09:30] <mithrennaith> good night, Amroth!
[2011-06-05 22:09:34] <Mith> Cards on the table, I'm pro-anon
[2011-06-05 22:09:44] <Ederchil> In favor
[2011-06-05 22:10:06] <Ederchil> as long as image uploads and page creation are disables
[2011-06-05 22:10:11] <Ederchil> *disabled
[2011-06-05 22:10:16] <Morgan> Well, I'm in favour too, unless they become so many that we can't check them (which probably won't happen)
[2011-06-05 22:10:21] <mithrennaith> I think the opinion of these three heavy editors and prime movers wheighs heavily.
[2011-06-05 22:10:27] <mithrennaith> *four
[2011-06-05 22:10:39] <Mith> Ederchil, absolutely. It would be edit *only*
[2011-06-05 22:10:50] <Morgan> brb
[2011-06-05 22:10:58] <Mith> Gamling?
[2011-06-05 22:11:03] <KingAragorn> Yeah that's default
[2011-06-05 22:11:05] <Gamling> Ok.
[2011-06-05 22:11:18] <mithrennaith> but I have grown comfortable with a wiki where you have a reasonably known group of editors.
[2011-06-05 22:12:07] <Mith> KA, actually it's nto default but that's another issue
[2011-06-05 22:12:20] <mithrennaith> I don’t wish to land in a situation (as is common on wikipedia) where every decision that has been debated and taken sensibly has to be defended against a group of outsiders coming in and knowing nothing.
[2011-06-05 22:12:41] <mithrennaith> and that about every year.
[2011-06-05 22:12:56] <KingAragorn> Really?! Every wiki I've ever known only allows an anon edit rights
[2011-06-05 22:13:18] <Ederchil> Wikia has it that way, I belive
[2011-06-05 22:13:21] <Mith> (The default is that anons can create articles)
[2011-06-05 22:13:39] <Mith> (I found this out the other day when I was doing autoconfirmed.)
[2011-06-05 22:13:45] <Ederchil> I've got to go, good night all
[2011-06-05 22:13:55] <mithrennaith> Goeie Nacht!
[2011-06-05 22:13:55] <KingAragorn> Side issue: how will the repair (or establishment) of the email system affect your spam solution?
[2011-06-05 22:13:58] <KingAragorn> Good night!
[2011-06-05 22:14:03] |<-- Ederchil has left (Quit: ajax IRC Client)
[2011-06-05 22:14:05] <Mith> Good night!
[2011-06-05 22:14:21] <Mith> I don't think it'll have any affect
[2011-06-05 22:14:49] <KingAragorn> OK
[2011-06-05 22:15:13] <Mith> The thing for me is that we editors don't know everything. Anons may spot a spelling error and correct it; they won't sign up for that
[2011-06-05 22:15:28] <mithrennaith> Agreed. That is a pro.
[2011-06-05 22:15:31] <Mith> Furthemore, if a good anon likes the taste of editing he/she might sign up for more powers
[2011-06-05 22:15:57] <mithrennaith> All good arguments, and I’m not denying them.
[2011-06-05 22:15:58] <Mith> Allowing anons the ability to edit gives them a taste of the addiction! It draws them in
[2011-06-05 22:16:13] <KingAragorn> Yes!
[2011-06-05 22:16:29] <Mith> I don't see Anons coming to meetings or debating stuff on talk pages that heavily
[2011-06-05 22:16:33] <mithrennaith> It’s just a feeling that I have, how did I put it ...
[2011-06-05 22:16:35] <Mith> How many anons come to meetings now
[2011-06-05 22:16:43] <KingAragorn> 192,.168.2.1 has join #Wiki
[2011-06-05 22:16:53] <Mith> Is that me?!
[2011-06-05 22:16:58] <KingAragorn> Hello! What are your thoughts on this issue!
[2011-06-05 22:17:33] <KingAragorn> No
[2011-06-05 22:17:38] <mithrennaith> ‘‘ prevent our fundamental nature (i.e. primacy of the books and their author, while at the same time being rather completist inclusionists of adaptations as long as they are clearly distinguished as such, and taking fully into account The History of Middle-earth, not necessarily subordinating it to The Silmarillion) from eroding ’’
[2011-06-05 22:18:01] <mithrennaith> That’s what I said. I can’t really underpin it,
[2011-06-05 22:18:07] <Mith> OK, so is this a cultural issue for you
[2011-06-05 22:18:24] <Mith> We all have a a broadly similar outlook on the way to approach e.g. books and films
[2011-06-05 22:18:31] <Mith> And you're worried that'll get disrupted?
[2011-06-05 22:18:47] <Morgan> back
[2011-06-05 22:18:51] <mithrennaith> Yes, it is, and yes, we do, and yes, I worry.
[2011-06-05 22:19:24] <Mith> Gamling, do you have any views - you're relatively new compared with the rest of us?
[2011-06-05 22:19:36] <mithrennaith> - perhaps unnecessarily, but it’s one of the reasons I’ve stepped away from doing tolkien stuff on dutch wikipedia.
[2011-06-05 22:19:41] <Mith> I'd really like to know whart you think on this. :)
[2011-06-05 22:20:26] <Gamling> I'm trying to follow the argument here so that's why I've been quiet.
[2011-06-05 22:20:58] <Gamling> Is the core issue about protecting the consistency of TG?
[2011-06-05 22:21:38] <mithrennaith> That’s what I’m worrying about, yes - as I said, perhaps unnecessarily so.
[2011-06-05 22:22:40] <KingAragorn> I don't think that the number of anon edits we'd get would be significant enough to have that effect
[2011-06-05 22:23:09] <Mith> One thing I would say is that we've not been entirely consistent
[2011-06-05 22:23:16] <Mith> We are much more bookish than when I first joined
[2011-06-05 22:23:19] <mithrennaith> Agreed with that.
[2011-06-05 22:23:32] <mithrennaith> Bookish suits me fine.
[2011-06-05 22:23:37] <Morgan> Well, in my opinion I think your (Mithrennaith's) worries are unnecessary - right now we can easily handle the few "bad" edits that would occur if we allow anons
[2011-06-05 22:23:38] <mithrennaith> Inconsistent not.
[2011-06-05 22:24:17] <Mith> I think we are all pretty hot on weeding out fanon
[2011-06-05 22:24:19] <Morgan> However, if we see a storm of edits (perhaps due to The Hobbit films), I would be in favour of perhaps removing the anon edits (that is, if they would taint the wiki)
[2011-06-05 22:24:26] <Gamling> As long as the edits can be checked then I like allowing anons to edit. As suggested, it may add new people.
[2011-06-05 22:24:36] <mithrennaith> There is too much work to be done to be complacent about the amount of work that goes into policing, I think though.
[2011-06-05 22:24:55] <Morgan> good point
[2011-06-05 22:25:07] <mithrennaith> Just yesterday I went through the mess that goes for treatment of M-e Calendars here.
[2011-06-05 22:25:16] <Mith> Gamling, did the website being locked affect your signing up? If anons could edit would you have edited earlier?
[2011-06-05 22:25:20] <Morgan> We should, however, be more explicit in policy guidelines
[2011-06-05 22:25:30] <mithrennaith> I wish I had the time to go through that thoroughly.
[2011-06-05 22:25:46] <mithrennaith> But as it is, I don’t even have time to police recent changes.
[2011-06-05 22:26:00] <Gamling> I signed up fairly quickly so I'm not sure. I think I signed up in order to edit.
[2011-06-05 22:26:03] <mithrennaith> (Which was the first thing I wanted to do here regulary, once).
[2011-06-05 22:26:18] <Morgan> Really? Calenadars? Do you collect?
[2011-06-05 22:26:22] <Morgan> *calendars
[2011-06-05 22:26:51] <mithrennaith> Wrong calendars, Morgan.
[2011-06-05 22:26:57] <Morgan> haha, oh!
[2011-06-05 22:27:40] <Mith> There couldn't be a drastic change in policy
[2011-06-05 22:27:52] <Mith> For a start I think we wouldn't allow it
[2011-06-05 22:27:58] <Mith> Collectively, us lot here
[2011-06-05 22:28:16] <Mith> We may disagree on more trivial matters, but on the fundamentals we're all solid
[2011-06-05 22:28:20] <Morgan> agree
[2011-06-05 22:28:29] <Gamling> agree
[2011-06-05 22:28:40] <mithrennaith> Yes, I feel agreeing with that, certainly.
[2011-06-05 22:28:46] <Mith> And
[2011-06-05 22:29:09] <Mith> Although we have no formal constitution - the meetings are our ultimate decision making process
[2011-06-05 22:30:13] <Mith> I think that needn't be a worry. I would say the biggest concern is policing
[2011-06-05 22:30:31] <Mith> But I'm not convinced we'd have that much stuff to wade through
[2011-06-05 22:30:48] <Mith> CAPTCHA will keep out spammers (at least more)
[2011-06-05 22:30:51] <Mith> most*
[2011-06-05 22:31:01] <Mith> I don't remember having that many anons in the old days
[2011-06-05 22:31:10] <Mith> But I remember anon editors becoming users
[2011-06-05 22:31:18] <Gamling> We could open up anon editing for a test period and see how big the policing problem is and decide after that.
[2011-06-05 22:31:28] <Morgan> My experience is also that "scholarly-style" book-referencing always "wins" over fanon edits - that is, I've never really had to debate a point where evidence can be traced in a reliable source
[2011-06-05 22:32:28] <Mith> +3 (:p) Morgan
[2011-06-05 22:32:32] <Morgan> I also remember that a new editor recently just copied a huge amount of text from The Thain's Book into oone of our article - I just removed the text and the new editor didn't complain
[2011-06-05 22:33:10] <Mith> And sysops do have banning procedures to deal with troublesome people
[2011-06-05 22:33:21] <Mith> Not to mention weight of opinion against them
[2011-06-05 22:33:31] <mithrennaith> We don’t have any real POV trolls here, if we get one it might change very quickly ...
[2011-06-05 22:36:51] <KingAragorn> Can I move List of Place Names to Index:Locations ?
[2011-06-05 22:37:00] <Mith> KA: yes
[2011-06-05 22:43:56] <mithrennaith> My personal makeup is so problematic, that even if I only concentrate on one article for two weeks, I will never have the feeling of not being disrupted.
[2011-06-05 22:44:00] <Mith> I think Gamling's suggestion for a trial anon is sensible
[2011-06-05 22:44:33] <mithrennaith> Actually, I think so too - when reCAPTCHA is in place.
[2011-06-05 22:45:06] <KingAragorn> Meeting adjourned.