Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/7 September 2008/Transcript
<Hyarion> Welcome everyone, to the 4th weekly Tolkien Gateway meeting!
<Mith> I tried to use AIM and Yahoo and IRC etc.
<Ederchil> 4th already?
<Hyarion> Four editors currently in attendance, Ederchil, Hyarion, Mith, and Theoden1
<Hyarion> Everything will be logged and posted to the wiki for those who were unable to attend.
<Hyarion> The first topic of discussion is "Carrying over un-discussed items from last week's agenda (standards for songs and poems; and featured article, improvement drive and projects). " by Mith, the floor is yours Mith
<Mith> Well, that wasn't an item per se, that was just me putting in the discussion that two items from last week (I think) went undiscussed
<Ederchil> whose floor is it then?
<Mith> The first of the two things which went undiscussed
<Hyarion> Mith's, he's going to talk about standards for songs and poems.
<Mith> was Hyarion's "Improving the Featured Article system (rules, set up, etc.), a possible Improvement Drive (or at least a comprehensive system), amongst other things, such as an overhaul of Tolkien Gateway Projects. "?
<Ederchil> Oh, Cutler Beckett's pet peeves
<Hyarion> oh, yea that was Lord Cutler Beckett's topic
<Mith> Ah, it wasn't yours?
<Hyarion> well, an Improvement Drive is definitely necessary
<Ederchil> nope. LCB just never showed up
<Theoden1> i see
<Ederchil> sure, not much to improve on GdT's The hobbit
<Mith> Do we want/need to discuss it regardless?
<Hyarion> well, I'd argue the article isn't that great and still needs a lot of improvement
<Hyarion> but we should still be rotating the articles
<Ederchil> maybe create a list?
<Hyarion> at this point though I think trying to organize so many different projects isn't the best approach, we still don't really have enough editors where a front page article is going to get much more attention
<Hyarion> in improving/editing it that is
<Mith> Yeah, I have to confess I don't much look at the homepage
<Ederchil> usually go straight for RC
<Theoden1> ttyl- 5min break
<Mith> I go straight for Community Portal and Watchlist myself
Hyarion goes for RC
<Ederchil> sometimes check the calendar
<Hyarion> so you use a Watchlist Mith?
<Ederchil> that is so middle-ages
<Mith> In fact, does it not seem bizarre that the people who should see the improvement drive never look at it?
<Mith> Perhaps we should move it to the Community Portal?
<Hyarion> might be a good idea
<Mith> I do, and I do actively watch articles
<Ederchil> I watch everything
<Hyarion> good to hear, I think once Recent changes becomes too long to track more people will switch to watchlists
<Mith> The only thing I really look out for on Recent Changes is talk pages
<Mith> I like to give my opinion on those
<Ederchil> noticed that.
<Hyarion> let's see, does anyone think another article would be better for the improvement drive?
<Mith> I personally don't think the Featured Article system needs changing, but I do think that the featured article needs to be rotated more frequently
<Theoden1> I'm back
<Hyarion> well the system is fine, it's just a matter of getting enough people to vote
<Theoden1> I watch
<Hyarion> we're getting close to having enough though.
<Mith> Some from here, I expect: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Category:Articles_needing_expansion
<Ederchil> Maybe Tuor? not much of an article
<Theoden1> we can rotate FA's, but remember the well is shallow
<Hyarion> Tuor might be a good choice, there's a lot more info out there on him
<Mith> Poor Tuor! It's a pitiful article!
<Mith> Such a legend too!
<Ederchil> off the record, what's your opinion on http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elladan_and_Elrohir ?
<Hyarion> maybe I'll go ahead and just switch the Improvement Drive article to Tuor
<Theoden1> E&E needs alot of work too
<Theoden1> either one would do
<Ederchil> well, most of it is at Elrohir and Elladan already
<Ederchil> the separate articles, I mean
<Theoden1> under their separate names?
totom ([email protected]F3B.nousoft.org) has joined #Wiki
<Hyarion> ah yea
<Hyarion> hi totom
<totom> hi, just reading :-)
<Hyarion> should Elladan and Elrohir be a disambig then?
<Ederchil> what links there?
<Theoden1> Elrohir is just a stub, however
<Hyarion> only a few articles, but I suppose it is possible someone might search for them
<Ederchil> well, put that in the improvement pool too
<Theoden1> makes sense
<Hyarion> okay, should we move on?
<Hyarion> Mith, do you want to talk about Songs and Poems standards?
<Theoden1> go ahead
<Mith> OK, I don't know if you are aware but our songs and poems (and I'm talking primarily about those written by JRRT himself) are quite poorly represented. Many of them don't even have articles and when they do the poem/song isn't even listed (which I believe we can/should be able to do under fair use).
<Hyarion> We should probably set a standard for maximum length of a quotable poem
<Theoden1> how do we handle that?
<Mith> But my issue here is that we seem to have some arbitrary definition of when some are songs and when some are poems. Some poems and songs are titled with their name (as given in the Index of TLOTR) whereas some are titled with the first line.
<Hyarion> the problem is many do not have names
<Hyarion> I think our best option is to use the first line if no name exists
<Hyarion> if there is an article referred to by the first line when it has a title then that should definitely be fixed.
<Theoden1> makes sense
<Mith> But some have clear and well-known names
<Mith> And they aren't titled that way
<Ederchil> such as?
<Mith> A prominent example: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_World_was_Young%2C_the_Mountains_Green
<Ederchil> I'd say move that one
<Hyarion> we should probably add some analysis to the article so it isn't just the text of the poem
<Mith> OK, how we differentiate between a poem and a song
<Mith> because this is incredibly haphazard
<Ederchil> use song for all in-text poetry and poem for all of Tolkienś other poems?
<Theoden1> I'm for adding analysis
<Ederchil> me too on the analysis
<Hyarion> are there any in-text poems which are not songs/not meant to be sung?
<Ederchil> as far as I know, no
<Mith> I'm for adding analysis too but I'm not sure this is the crux of the issue
<Hyarion> well it just makes it less likely to be fair use if we just quote the poem.
<Theoden1> just one facet
<Theoden1> kinda slow today, aren't we?
<Mith> So should all the ones in TLOTR be songs?
<Theoden1> in responding
<Mith> And all the ones elsewhere be poems unless we can prove otherwise
<Ederchil> yeah to mith
<Hyarion> well, I'm just trying to find some that were not called songs
<Ederchil> QED to Theoden1
<Mith> And all of them should be titled with their name unless we don't have it?
<Mith> Alright those were my two main issues.
<Mith> The last main issue I had
<Mith> Was how to format the poems
<Ederchil> It's just not that pretty
<Mith> Some people use the <poem>, some use <quote> some people just do it ordinarily in italics
<Mith> I was going to say
<Mith> I don't like poem
<Ederchil> me neither.
<Hyarion> what would you change?
<Ederchil> preferably italics
<Ederchil> like all quotes
<Ederchil> maybe an indent?
<Mith> I agree with both of that
<Mith> Tolkien writes them in italics so it would be unfair if we ignored that
<Theoden1> good point
<Hyarion> hmm, are there any instance where we would want to use the <poem> extension without italics?
<Mith> I can't think of any
<Hyarion> I'll see if I can just modify the poem extension then
<Mith> Hyarion, you're a sar
Tar-Telperien ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
<Ederchil> hiya tar
<Theoden1> he made it!
<Ederchil> next point?
<Hyarion> <poem style="font-style:italic;"></poem
<Mith> I think Hyarion's up next with naming conventions
<Hyarion> maybe we should just use that
<Mith> Does poem indent?
<Hyarion> <poem style="font-style:italic; margin-left:20px;"></poem
<Ederchil> man, you ARE a *sar
<Hyarion> but ideally we don't want to have to type that everytime, so I'll see if I can incorporate it into the extension, for now though feel free to use that
<Hyarion> let's see, okay I'm up
<Hyarion> I think last week we were discussing naming conventions and we decided on using parentheses to preserve the actual title
<Theoden1> seemed OK
<Ederchil> and so too for films
<Theoden1> we need consistency though
<Hyarion> I think we should probably do the same for the adaptations, and go away from our Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring to The Fellowship of the Ring (2001 film)
<Ederchil> agree. radio is already this way
<Ederchil> so are some games
<Ederchil> maybe we should use full titles?
<Hyarion> now the question is, do we use the /full/ title of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring"
<Hyarion> Wikipedia uses this title instead of (2001 film)
<Mith> I think that would be a bit silly myself.
<Ederchil> The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film/movie)
<Ederchil> what's the diff between film and movie anyway?
<Hyarion> in my opinion, we need to stick with what is official, and the films were marketed as "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" so we should stick with that.
<Mith> The British tend to say film, the Americans tend to say movie.
<Ederchil> and Battle for M-e is marketed as "Middle Earth". Stick with that too?
<Hyarion> yea that's where I'm not sure
<Mith> Although, technically the film is the membrane on which the motion picture is recorded.
<Hyarion> there are lots of things, games, books, etc. marketed with misspellings
<Ederchil> Man, I already love "The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II - The Rise of the Wirch-king" as an article title
<Mith> I think we should stick with their awful spellings, but create proper spelling redirects
<Ederchil> * witch
<Hyarion> for the sake of not spreading misspellings, I'm leaning towards just redirecting the misspelled name to the correct name
<Mith> It's not our job to chastise EA
<Ederchil> I favour marketed name
<Mith> We are merely repeating factual information, not passing judgement (as much as we may like to)
Turin ([email protected]) has joined #Wiki
Turin ([email protected]) has left #Wiki
<Hyarion> actually Ederchil I don't think that was the full name.
<Theoden1> it's worse?
<Hyarion> oh nm you had it right
<Ederchil> it is - according to the Guinness book of World records, it's the longest game title ever
<Hyarion> yea I can't imagine it would get longer than that
<Hyarion> I say we stick with it
<Ederchil> tLotR:tBfMEII - tRotWK is the most useless acronym after WWW
<Theoden1> oh lord
<Hyarion> okay, so what does everyone think?
<Ederchil> proper titles
<Hyarion> even with misspellings?
<Mith> proper titles
<Theoden1> but use redirects
<Hyarion> sounds good.
<Theoden1> redirects and abbrevs
<Hyarion> Next up is Mith with "Discussion on how far and how much of the information and related facts from the films we should include on TG. "
<Mith> If they can't spell, it's not our fault
<Mith> Basically, last week we had a bit of an altercation regarding Weapons and Warfare
<Mith> On which Theoden1, I think, accused me of being snobbish. :P
<Theoden1> a little snooty
<Mith> Haha, I don't mind. But I think it does raise important questions
<Mith> How much stuff from the films do we want to put in.
<Hyarion> "Portrayal in adaptations"
<Hyarion> I say include as much as there is to include, as long as it stays in its respective section
<Theoden1> as long as it's labeled, shouldn't be a problem
<Mith> Do we want to put in all the information on all the in-film weapons, do we want to put in transcripts and analysis of all the Elvish (even though it might not be consistent with Tolkien's Quenya and Sindarin)?
<Hyarion> I think so.
<Mith> And the books like WaW, do we want an article for every chapter too?
<Theoden1> WaW has a lot of info, some of it directly gleaned from the books
<Hyarion> It's our job to show the fan what is canon and what isn't, we should include the inconsistencies to show them
<Ederchil> and some of it isn't
<Theoden1> some WaW can be referenced directly
<Theoden1> but that's a big job, and the writers didn't do it
<Ederchil> which sort of ovelraps Mith's next point :)
<Hyarion> hm, I suppose some of WaW could be referenced directly, such as if it says the inches PJ made some weapon, that's fine in the portrayals section
<Theoden1> which is?
<Hyarion> but it can't be referenced on canon material.
<Theoden1> some of it can
<Hyarion> no, none.
<Theoden1> come on...
<Hyarion> ideally we shouldn't even reference Hammond and Scull's works.
<Theoden1> of course some can
<Hyarion> well, do you have an example you're thinking of?
<Mith> This could lead to sections of In Portrayals longer than the rest of the article.
<Theoden1> you're insulting them
<Ederchil> H & S can be quoted - just not in the history section
<Theoden1> if WaW has an article on Sting, you can find refs on its length and shape in the Hobbit
<Ederchil> if they come up with an inspiration or an etymology, then go ahead
<Theoden1> for example
<Hyarion> Ederchil, yea, with H&S it might be worth citing both sources, H&S and then the small article or unpublished letter they received their information from
<Theoden1> see my point
<Ederchil> Hyarion - I already did that for Nomenclature
<Hyarion> Ederchil, awesome
<Hyarion> Theoden1, so WaW lists a canon length of Sting?
<Ederchil> in inches or centimeters?
<Theoden1> i gave an example
<Hyarion> I know, I'm just trying to understand.
<Theoden1> it may or may not
<Hyarion> well let's consider both instances
<Theoden1> ederchil- wise guy
<Hyarion> if it is not correct, we don't want to cite it.
<Hyarion> if it is correct, why are we citing WaW and not The Hobbit?
<Theoden1> if ref is there, it is correct
<Mith> I shouldn't imagine Tolkien did anything in centimetres!
<Ederchil> if ref is there, USE THAT REF!
<Hyarion> Theoden1, so why are we not citing the statement WaW got it from?
<Theoden1> cause we don't want to read the Hobbit to find sword info every day!
<Hyarion> what if a fan site references WaW which references The Hobbit, should we cite that fan site?
<Theoden1> great deal of trouble
<Mith> Isn't that what TG is for?
<Hyarion> Theoden1, he gave you the reference...page number and all I assume.
<Hyarion> so you don't have to do any digging.
<Mith> Aren't WE going to the trouble to find things other eople don't have to?
<Theoden1> WaW has weak or no refs
<Theoden1> but they may still exist
<Hyarion> don't you think there's a reason why there is no reference?
<Ederchil> hence our side of the argument
<Mith> Without Chris Smith here
<Hyarion> so we should continue that sloppiness?
<Theoden1> and laziness
<Mith> We can't know whether it's made up or not
<Hyarion> we should continue that laziness?
<Theoden1> we can dig for the refs, but don't throw out WaW
<Hyarion> if not for canon, think of all the people looking these quotes up, very few would possess WaW vs. The Hobbit
<Mith> I am pretty confident that, for example, the exact sizes and inscriptions of those weapons will not be able to be found by us.
<Theoden1> I still consider WaW to be a secondary source, but a respectable one
<Ederchil> secondary to the movies
<Ederchil> not to the books
<Theoden1> much of it was based on book info
<Mith> I was going to say, it's really a tertiary source
<Theoden1> now that's insulting
<Mith> It's a book of swords on a film of books?
<Theoden1> you guys are just throwing rocks now
<Mith> film is secondary, so that makes WaW tertiary (in my opinion). But this isn't the point.
<Theoden1> what is?
<Mith> But this is the exact debate I think we need have
<Mith> How far do we go
<Hyarion> as far as possible
<Theoden1> to me, WaW is a summary of wide-ranging info
<Mith> To me, WaW is a summary of wide-ranging film info.
<Theoden1> book info as interpreted in the films
<Hyarion> and the film info is interpreted in the book
<Ederchil> so, film info
<Mith> You have to admit
<Mith> Some of the stuff is just made up.
<Mith> No factual basis at all.
<Theoden1> some is elaborated, and extrapolated
<Mith> As an example, the inscriptions on the weapons.
<Theoden1> that doesn't mean made up
<Ederchil> it does
<Mith> They created them, Tolkien didn't
<Theoden1> not most of the time
<Ederchil> there are NO exact sword inscriptions known
<Hyarion> I think we're missing the point, why don't we just assume everything in the book is accurate
<Hyarion> we /still/ couldn't cite it
<Theoden1> I'm tired, can we move on?
<Mith> So we couldn't say
Hyarion thinks Theoden1's alias is Chris Smith
<Ederchil> hyarion - so too for Ruth Noel
<Hyarion> Ederchil, true
<Mith> In The Lord of the Rings Trilogy Sting had this inscription
<Theoden1> I think I'm leaving...
<Ederchil> and this name, Maegnas.
<Hyarion> Ederchil, but I do want to add all the inaccuracies to the Language's of Tolkien's Middle-earth so people know what they can trust and what they can't
<Mith> I think we shouldn't promote that book unless needs be
<Ederchil> there are four or more lists of that already
<Hyarion> :) still worth including
Theoden1 ([email protected]) has left #Wiki (I'm battling on the Dagorlad Plain)
<Hyarion> I have to at least give languages more credit since more of the information is ambiguous
<Hyarion> okay, should we move on?
<Ederchil> well, if Noel cites a source (she does it more foten than Smith), we use that source
<Ederchil> yeah, movie on
<Ederchil> totom, tar, you in?
<Hyarion> Mith is up again with "As referencing is increasingly becoming an issue of importance, perhaps we need a style guide on referencing (e.g. should we put author's names, put in author names except for book written by Tolkien, page numbers, chapter titles, ISBNs, what order these should go in, etc. etc.). "
<totom> in ?
<Ederchil> the meeting!
<totom> oh, just reading
<Mith> Thank you, Hyarion. This is basically a purely stylistic issue
<totom> I've not contributed much to the wiki
<totom> it's just interesting to see how this is being steered
<Hyarion> your opinion is sitll important! :)
<Hyarion> steered in the right direction I hope.
<Mith> How do we format our references (I don't mean using the 
<ref>tags exist, but no
<references/>tag was found