Forums:Quenya declension template appearance

From Tolkien Gateway
Revision as of 11:14, 1 November 2022 by LorenzoCB (talk | contribs) (Removed former link)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Tolkien Gateway > Council > Quenya declension template appearance

I've done a lot of technical work over the past few days, and now the state of the Quenya declension templates seems to have mostly stabilized. But now that I have the templates working and in place in many articles, I realized... They need more style, more elegance. They need to fit in more with the feel of the other infobox-like templates on this site. So, while I handle technical issues, does anyone feel up to helping me stylize the presentation tables? The relevant templates are Template:qya-decl-full (nouns inflected by multiple numbers), Template:qya-decl-sg (nouns inflected only in singular: tall version) and Template:qya-decl-sg2 (nouns inflected only in singular: space-saving version). They are mostly the same, not considering their different layout schemes. I could also potentially reduce some of the repetitive table cell code with templates themselves, but I'm concerned about style at the moment.

Meanwhile, I've also been considering other grammatical infobox templates. Maybe Sindarin nouns, maybe Quenya verbs, who knows? I probably won't need to do a whole template for Quenya adjectives though—they inflect so simply as it is (just singular and plural). - Gilgamesh 10:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations for your effort and work. I would be skeptical about such templates because of the lack of grammar. Since Tolkien never wrote any definite rules for the verbs, making such tables and presenting forms of verbs never inflected by him, would be fanon. Better leave this job to linguistic pages like Ardalambion who attempt to reconstruct the languages. An encyclopedia shouldn't take this role so boldly.
Personally, when I write dictionary entries and the "other forms" (see for example Ea_(verb)#Other_forms), the forms are those presented in Tolkien's writings, and aren't presented as an inflection/declension guide. Sage 11:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I asterisked the speculative forms, just like Ardalambion. Besides, I believe linguistics and linguistic issues have every place on this wiki, whether or not they have solid references. With the advent of various Neo-Quenya texts, the language has become more of a living thing than mere dry attestation. There's even a Quenya Wikipedia Incubator now. It has become virtually impossible for hard Tolkien canon to dictate all the notable manifestations of such popular languages. - Gilgamesh 12:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Besides, Tolkien was all about linguistics. What better for this wiki than to serve some modest functions of a grammar and lexicon as well, in addition to its role as an encyclopedia? There is just too much curiosity and potential to ignore. Ardalambion doesn't have a complete monopoly on documentation and grammarian thought. - Gilgamesh 12:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, on the issue of fanon, I think it's perfectly alright to cover non-canon and fanon as long as it's notable and marked as non-canon. Ardalambion is extremely notable. Besides, there's a fair-sized category of [:Non-canon maps], and some of them are very well-publicized. - Gilgamesh 12:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, thank you for bringing up canon issues. I've added a small-print canon notice to the templates. "Asterisked forms are speculative. Chart may not be canonical." - Gilgamesh 13:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To my experience Elvish are not more living than they were during the movies hype. Fan fiction has also been a thriving community but that doesn't give it legitimacy to be included in a wiki.
And that's why we have been working on extensive articles about the Tengwar and etymologies. But that's not the same with "teaching" the readers or making suggestions according to our or someone's theories. I disagree with this encyclopedia being used as a guide by some fan who wants to "learn Elvish" or make compositions, and mistakes our suggestions as valid and definite rules, because they aren't.
It took me some time after considering Ardalambion a gospel to realize that "possible", "logical" and "widely accepted" do not equal "truth".
As for the maps, the legendarium does not have a canon visualization, except the Hobbit illustrations perhaps. All Tolkien art is by definition fanart. That's why we can have two differing images of Gandalf in the same article. Sage 13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I really disagree that the Ardalambion-like linguistic detail has no place here. I mean, I'm actually not really a big Tolkien fan, but I've always been drawn to the linguistic aspects. Linguistics is the primary reason I became interested in this wiki. I would find it absurd to only include detail that is etched in stone by a commercially published source, when there is just so much study out there. Besides, I've actually asked for peer review before in the forums, but there was no one around at the time who specialized in this kind of thing. The basic consensus was for me to use my best judgment. I'm not extremely worried about air-tight edits—a wiki, given the manpower, is constantly evolving in its peer-review process. It's not my problem if the actual active pool of editors is so light. I actually moved here from Tolkien Wiki, after I came to realize how badly deserted it was. I'm a compulsive editor, documentor and linker. And I have a legitimate interest in this wiki. And if I had that interest, anyone can. I'd edit at Ardalambion if it were a wiki. - Gilgamesh 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sage on this, and I have problems with the templates on a number of levels:
  1. It isn't our place to state grammar in a very matter-of-fact manner. The very fact we say "Chart may not be 100% canonical." surely sheds doubt not only on the entirety of the chart, anyway, but on the entire article.
  2. "Asterisked forms are speculative." is our speculation. Our job is inform readers of facts, helping people to find the information that they are after, not teaching the public others' speculation which we are passing off as our own. This takes me to my next problem...
  3. There are no references to any of these.
  4. They're ugly and vulgar with header-text larger than the page-title (a cardinal sin in my eyes) and colours which often clash. This isn't really hard to solve but I just don't find them pleasant to look at, at the moment.
  5. They're very... "clutterful" especially on disambiguation pages in which they really dominate the page and distract from it.
We can have articles which talk about Sindarin and Quenya grammars and other people's speculations (with references), but to state them as fact in so many articles and then in the small print say "this might not be true" is dodgy ground for me. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The source is Ardalambion. The asterisking and the non-canon noticed were suggested to me after the fact, and I did my best to follow Ardalambion's recommendations of what was speculative and what was certain. Besides, the charts make the articles much more beautiful, and I love the colors. - Gilgamesh 16:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the canon notice includes a source. - Gilgamesh 16:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you mentioned the colors clashing. Do you mean within the chart? Or between the chart and the Gateway To Ithilien wiki skin used in the background of every page? The background appearance of the wiki is a variable, and can be changed by any registered user through skin-changing and through their own custom style sheets. As for the charts themselves, I've tried to tweak their colors so that - regardless of hue/saturation - the border has a YUV luma of 25%, the top cell has a luma of 50%, the header cells have a luma of 75%, and the transcription cells are white (luma of 100%). The text in all chart cells is black. This applies equally to Category:Quenya declension templates and Category:Sindarin noun templates, with Quenya using blue and Sindarin using silver-grey. - Gilgamesh 17:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've shrunken the font size of the table title to 150% of the current font size, rather than 200% as it was before. It should not usually be larger than the page title now. - Gilgamesh 17:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Something occurred to me. Maybe it's not so much the colors clash, as it is the luma that does. If I use a gentler difference in luma between the cells, they might be easier to read. Maybe if I shrank the overall font sizes too, to conserve even more space... I'll experiment. - Gilgamesh 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've shrunken the text size and re-adjusted the luma to contrast more gently. - Gilgamesh 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, the linguistics aspects of Tolkien's works are my absolute favorite part about it. Before I got here, there were already many dictionary-style entries. Since I've worked a lot at Wiktionary in the past, declension templates and IPA seemed like the most natural step for any linguistics-lover. Of course I was concerned about canonicity, which is why I asked for advice, which led to the asterisking and the canon notice. And with your comment about lacking sources, I added the Ardalambion link which has the extensive grammatical articles concerning inflection, lexicon, stem forms, etc. - Gilgamesh 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the notes section of each table, and instead embed the notes as a tagged reference which should appear somewhere in the references of each article it appears on. Since the tagged reference is named, it should appear only once. - Gilgamesh 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should say, replacing the canon notice with a tagged reference helped a great deal—now the notice's text can be even longer and more detailed without concern for its effects on chart layout. - Gilgamesh 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, though, this is - even though Helge is clearly one of the leading scholars - still one person's speculation. To put this level of speculation, stated as fact (and it does appear as fact to state it so prominently in those tables) is simply against the principles on which this wiki is founded.
Again, the point remains, here, that having such a massive disclaimer to those tables indicates that they can't really be fully trusted. They are referencing someone else's guess-work which I am uncomfortable with (and I don't think I'm the only one).
With regards to the lay-out and colours, I just find them pretty cumbersome. The text is still too large for my liking, and on many articles these tables are now the "main event" - indeed, a disproportionate focus on linguistics which very few people will use or want on some articles which are very short indeed (indeed, how many people will actually make use of these tables in reality?). If there's a list of priorities of "things to be done" on these articles, expanding character information, histories, infoboxes all trump the linguistics, I think. I actually don't use the Ithilien skin, I use the older Cavendish one, and they still look ugly (and I mean between the chart and the rest of the article).
Do you see my point about including them on disambiguation pages?
I don't think we're going to agree, here: you are clearly passionate about including as much linguistic information as possible whereas I feel we should be a bit more linguistic-lite within specific articles as I feel they're a speculative distraction. Perhaps someone else would like to mediate?
(P.S. Was it really necessary to have nine replies over eleven edits?) --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You're correct in that I'm linguistically passionate. It's actually the primary reason I got into editing at Tolkien wikis. If Tolkien doesn't have linguistics and dictionary-like lexicons, then Tolkien is simply not worth having. Besides, Helge Kåre Fauskanger has really made a highly-notable place for himself. When he talks, people listen. I listen. The wiki ought to hear what he has to say too, if there are people interested. I'm interested. His research is notable enough for lots of people to be interested. It may not be formal canon, or complete non-canon, or diffuse fanon. It's something as important—highly respected scientific research on the canons. Some Tolkien readers like myself cannot subsist on J.R.R. and Christopher alone. Or even on Peter or Vivendi. We can read The Lord of the Rings or the Quest of the Silmaril or any other engaging story until the cows come home. Readers like me most crave the highly-creative aspect of Tolkien studies that dances heavily on our neurons—the richly-grammatical linguistics. And, as I said in the beginning of this comment, if the linguistics aren't here, then Tolkien isn't worth having, because Tolkien is patently incomplete to me without it. So you were right—we're never going to agree on this. We can both be as passionate as Fëanor's famous speech and we may still differ entirely. And thus is the diversity of Tolkien readership and the notable details that make Tolkien's works interesting—and more importantly for us, notable and documentable. - Gilgamesh 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You've completely glossed over my point here. Yes listen to Helge et al., but is it our place to repeat it? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think so, yes. I know that was more of a rhetorical question on your part, but I really, really think we ought to. In fact, it's the primary reason I was interested enough to register. Linguistics documentation is the reason I'm here at this wiki in the first place. To me, Tolkien is first and foremost linguistics. Story, settings, etc. come second. I love Neo-Quenya. I love Neo-Sindarin. I love all that stuff. And I don't just want a Tolkien wikipedia, I want a Tolkien wiktionary too. I eat, sleep and breathe grammar. - Gilgamesh 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You have now re-iterated this point numerous times and it holds no more weight with me now than than the first time you made it. I know - and am now tired of hearing - that you love linguistics, that was the only reason you joined this place etc. etc. etc. This isn't an argument; this a defence of your personal actions. The fact you're even talking about neo-Quenya and neo-Sindarin puts you on dodgy ground; if I started talking about "neo-TLOTR" I would be laughed off these boards by being told that was fan-fiction and has no place here. The same rule applies to languages, surely? If you can't stage an adequate defence of your position (and no one appears to be jumping to your defence on this), then I propose these templates be removed or significantly scaled-back. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No one? It's only you and me here. No one else has contributed to this forum entry. (Ahh, I see Sage made a comment.) Besides, what exactly do you want to hear? My reasons have been about appeal factor and an area of reader interest. These things are notable to scholars and fanbase alike. That makes them documentable. I simply don't want just a wiki that documents nothing but hard canon without even a mention of other interests. You document them anyway—you just make sure they're very clearly labeled as either semi-canon, non-canon or fanon. I label these as semi-canon, in that they are based on canonical data with solid linguistic study and principle—something that may not be immediately obvious to a typical reader, but can be quite obvious to a well-studied linguist—semi-canon instead of full canon only by virtue of logically applying the rules as they have been spelled out by Tolkien for us to apply logically. And no, this is not fanfiction, because fanfiction is wildly creative and invented, and these templates are based on established rules that I never invented. But if you're getting to the topic of fanfiction, this site is already full of fanart (most of the art and maps, including those that appear at the tops of articles), various fanfictions (I saw some uncompleted fan-made screenplays here and there), and an address of fan interest. The documentation of linguistic data is not about writing fanfiction, but of documenting and presenting inflections and linguistic principles in a meaningful (and beautiful) way, making it more akin to fanart. The topic of Tolkien, as a wiki, cannot be the topic of Tolkien alone in a vacuum, but also of how it's received and studied by extended Tolkienologists. I mentioned that I love Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin, but these are legitimate Tolkien-related interests, and even those as separate articles would be worth documenting, and I mentioned them to illustrate part my background interests that eventually led to me editing linguistics. However, I didn't say that these templates themselves were actual Neo-Quenya or actual Neo-Sindarin—I use much stricter standards for these, and I do not make huge logic leaps. I keep any actual Neo-Quenya or Neo-Sindarin limited to user page projects only. These templates are not Neo-Quenya or Neo-Sindarin. Oppose removal. Oppose scale-back. Expand wiktionary-style nature of the wiki as per Forums:Wiktionary-style entries and grammatical inflections. Formally establish this wiki as both an encyclopedia and a dictionary/lexicon-in-progress. I got a few positive and constructive comments by a handful of other users anyway. This controversy here seems driven only by you, and is too small to put to a vote, otherwise more users would have at least bothered to comment in this forum entry either way. You can also see the input I got from Breragor and Ederchil on how to improve these features. Your insistence that all of this is somehow meaningless fanfiction is profoundly belittling to my years of Tolkien linguistics study. I'm a wiktionarian far more than I am a wikipedian. I'm here for Tolkien dictionary wiki editing. With the establishment of Wiktionary, the experience of Wiktionary editors, and especially the vast linguistics studies in Tolkienology, and with me finding many dictionary-style entries in this wiki already, it was perfectly logical and rational for me to arrive at this wiki with the specific intent of dictionary-editing, and that's why I'm here, and that's what I intend to do. Tolkien Gateway is already both an encyclopedia and a dictionary in the making, and I'm making it a bit more Wiktionary-like every day I'm here. If you remove the inflections and the grammatical detail, you might as well also strip all dictionary features bare. - Gilgamesh 01:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, I don't like your tone. It's antagonistic and condescending. I went ahead with this area of edits after already discussing it a previous forum. I wanted to make sure I wouldn't be stepping on too many people's toes with this. You seem to have done nothing but treat me and my responses with disdain, especially when I don't have a clear idea even of what you want. You made criticisms, I tried to improve the templates to take them into consideration. You were concerned about issues of canon and specters of fanfiction, and I already thought about that. You asked for reasons for this detail to be here on the wiki, and I discussed issues of interest and noteworthiness. You finally talked about how boring this conversation is and how laughable I am to mention topics I thought noteworthy. That is not a discussion—that is disdain and condescension. I did not come here to be in flame wars. I came here to edit linguistics. Either this place has dictionary features, or it does not. Either this place has room for wiktionary-style expansion, or it does not. I discussed it in advance, and I walked away with the understanding that this place is suitable for both of those things, and I went ahead in good faith that I'm editing at an encyclopedia that doubles as a dictionary. I have kept all my Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin stuff in personal user pages while keeping it strictly separate from the hard linguistic science. Now, could you please just leave me be and allow me to continue work here without scorn every time you respond? This is not productive discussion, but only a source of unnecessary wasteful wikistress. Unless you can provide constructive criticism and suggestions on how to further enhance and refine the linguistics and dictionary editing in this wiki—as I have asked in the subject of this forum entry in regards to layout and aesthetic appearance—your comment will not be considered helpful. And if the comment is not respectful, I will consider it trolling and ignore it. I do not have the time or energy to explain the scientific nature and particular notability of linguistic detail to every skeptic in a way that will be perfectly satisfactory to all. (Part of that is that it's not very easy for me to speak in layman's terms or "plain" English at a moment's notice—it's sort of a handicap of mine, but it is what it is. Despite my affinity for linguistics science and data, my more everyday English speech and communication skills tend to sound stilted and are difficult to convey with intuitive clarity.) That's part of why I requested in advance whether I could work on these linguistics area in such an advanced manner. Please, either help me, work with me, suggest smoother or more efficient ways to incorporate it into article texts, or at the very least don't hinder the work. - Gilgamesh 09:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that these are meaningless, but have questioned whether it is our place to include them. My original list of five concerns haven't really been satisfied (although I do recognise the improvements you have made to the templates) which is why I am getting bored of the circular nature of this argument (from both of us).
I'm sorry if you find me condescending, but I don't much like your tone either: I am finding you very patronising. I'm not happy about your attempt to enforce your vision of a Wiktionary-style encyclopædia on the rest of us simply because you are in love with linguistics. It's a shame we didn't have a chance to have a full debate on all of this before-hand as I know it appears I'm being knee-jerk and conservative and am now trying to write our your work.
I don't really accept the title "semi-canon"; I think something is either canon or not. When it's not canon we use the Noncanon template or Fanon template and we will clearly signpost it, "The author X has suggested Y." and we will (or at least should) mention an opposing view. All of this is lacking here; I know you'll point to the footnote but I don't think it's that clear. Do you at least understand where I'm coming from here with regards to canonicity and neutrality?
At the very least, can we agree to remove these templates from disambiguation page because a) it clutters them up as the purpose of these pages is simply to direct people to where they want to go and b) the grammars are repeated in the individual articles anyway.--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Though I think languages are an intrinsic part of Tolkien's legendarium and should definitely be mentioned, I concur with Mith on both canonicity and appearance. Most forms are unattested, and I personally dislike the thought of including Neo-Eldarin in any form, no matter how well-supported. It's Tolkien's baby, not that of HKF, you, me, the ELFconners or anyone else. It's okay to say "we don't know this form". I think it suits an encyclopedia better than "this is what some guy thinks".
As for appearance, the box does detract from the actual page. Maybe if it were a more modest box, stored under a subsection of ==Etymology==. Without the lines or colored backgrounds, it would increase readability. Also, a link to the wikipedia entry of the linguistic terms would be handy for the less linguistically gifted visitors. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright. So remove colors and styles from the boxes? And link linguistics terms to Wikipedia articles? So exactly how do we handle unattested forms? And though Helge Kåre Fauskanger is not Tolkien himself, it was my understanding that he was one of the leading independent scientific authorities on the subject. My Wikipedia and Wiktionary instincts tell me he's a credible source. I never had the impression that he was making Neo-Eldarin—I thought that's something people do to coin completely new words like for "television" or "internet", not to merely exercise already-documented grammar and lexicon in a wholly orthodox manner. I like Neo-Eldarin, but I didn't think that HKF was doing Neo-Eldarin. And I know a lot of linguistic minds crave this kind of deep linguistic discussion, documentation and inflection. There has to be some place for this irrepressible need that a Tolkien wiki can fully accommodate in an efficient distributed, searchable, cross-referenceable manner. It seems like a wholly natural intellectual drive. Ederchil, I enjoy discussing things with you because you speak with a sensitive and respectful manner, and are very thoughtful and helpful with all your ideas, even when you're disagreeing with me. I like your tone. It's rather unfortunate that I'm not always clear in communicating myself (especially trying not to sound patronizing), but I do my best. do we address everyone's concerns adequately without getting into flame wars or proverbial excretion contests? - Gilgamesh 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Personal definitions of terms can differ, of course. To me, Neo-Eldarin is all sensible extrapolations, while I refer to "television", "internet" e.d. as Pseudo-Sindarin.
The matter of placing "authority" in Fauskanger is a debate I do not want to get my hands dirty on. It's been fiercer, but there's still some enmity between the Fauskanger/Salo camp and the Hostetter/Welden/Smith/Gilson etc camp (the so-called "ELFconners").
Summarized, ELF accuses Fauskanger c.s. of making irresponsible generalizations (and they certainly have a point or two), while Fauskanger c.s. accuse the ELF crew - editors of VT and PE - of holding on to all the source texts (and they've got a point too). I'm neutral in that whole fight. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I...see. Would you believe me if I said I'd not read Quenta Eldalamberon? I'd never heard the term "ELFconner", and I was unaware of this general controversy. On the contrary, I read through every Ardalambion text I could get my hands on, and it made my inner linguist coo like a baby. If there is this large controversy, then I could see that perhaps I'm advancing too many assumptions that aren't etched in stone, which I thought were etched in stone. Hm... I didn't actually want a controversy on this scale, and this puts me suddenly in an uncomfortable position. However, I shall try to adapt. Maybe, at least for now, I should comment out all the inflection templates until we know what to do with them? - Gilgamesh 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Mith? I'm sorry I sound patronizing. I don't actually mean to. One thing that can become quickly clear about me, is that I always sound patronizing, rain or shine. It's actually...not really my fault. I'm high-functioning (but sub-aspergers) autistic, and I have a significant communications handicap where I have difficulty efficiently translating mental concepts into clear, socially intuitive speech in real time. When it comes to linguistics science and lexicon, I have that down, and I can compose all sorts of sentences—the difficulty is in making sentences that are delicate and appropriate enough for all human communication needs. As a result, I pretty much always sound stilted and rambly. There has never been a quick fix for it, so I wing it every moment, and do the best that I can. However, I didn't want that to be all that relevant here. I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to my background tone, because it's the only way I know how to talk at all. Just don't let it bother you, or something. I don't really have any idea what else to suggest. I'm still smart, and I can still work and collaborate—I just sound robotic at times, and it ultimately shouldn't matter how jarring that sounds. I just tend to expect more from neurotypical people. In my experience, some neurotypical people are gifted with a natural good-natured patience, while other neurotypical people have very little patience for social behavioral aberration. Some people are always gentle and sensitive about it, and some people can never get out of the highly-blunt "snap out of it or please vanish from my universe" approach. The impatient approach never, ever works as people want it to, because there is no snapping out of a fundamental nature, and then I don't necessarily go away either. The strange thing is, I think it's highly probable that Ederchil told me the same things you did, but he was instantly simpler to understand, while I had trouble trying to figure out what you wanted of me. (Commendations to Ederchil for wearing Narya while speaking to us.) - Gilgamesh 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromise[edit source]

I respect and share Gilgamesh's passion and love and most of all, his effort. I am firm in my first position that a wiki is not a place to promote a non-objective way of thinking, and neo-Eldarin (how to conjure a noun that Tolkien never wrote how to conjure, or standardize verb forms while Tolkien never wrote a guide) is not an objective way of thinking. I consider Helge my mentor, but he is not the most respected linguist; he is the most popular. And I don't think that himself would like his theories being advanced as a "standard" in an encyclopedic effort (and we can ask him).

Gilgamesh, I think you don't understand the spirit of an encyclopedia. I can't explain it, but I know that I understand it. Some years ago, I didn't either and I would argue over and over in Wikipedia on subjective matters which had no position there (unfortunately). I was one of the many who misunderstood what a wiki is.

Our negative reactions are not because of neophobia (fear for something new) nor bigotry. It's just respecting the objective facts. Painting a wiki in some color (the Neo-Elvish color) does not do justice to anyone.

As I said, I respect your effort, and I'd hate to see it wasted. I would like to thing over which places should be appropriate for the templates, and with which disclaimers. I would propose to make them minimalistic, less prominent and less destracting... perhaps retractable. Sage 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to see that... Yes, HKF is one of my mentors as well. He makes everything so...understandable. I thought, for certain, he was the leading guru on this. But if there are indeed an entire camp of dissenters, then things are not as simple as I thought they were. I'm suddenly very uncomfortable, especially as I've so craved a Tolkien wiktionary. I still want one. Under these circumstances, I don't know how to advance one. And, well, you may be right—I've actually been on Wikipedia since 2003, and though the use of MediaWiki software and features became second nature to me, there are certain...grooves, that I never seemed to get into. I was recently given rollback priveleges, but I haven't seen fit to use them. I've never been an admin personality, and I've never received barnstar awards, etc. Never got into significant trouble either, but still... I ended up doing my best work at Wiktionary in the Ancient Greek project. I took a modest template collection and vastly expanded it. And the thing is, there were many discussion there too about what's attested and what's not. We have all sorts of Ancient Greek texts, but today we have no Ancient Greek speakers, so some standards were essentially assumed over many centuries of linguistic study based on analogy and already-understood principles. Still, we used external references, and pushed ahead, and made something of it. I figured, for sure, I could do something similar here in the same vein. - Gilgamesh 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, everyone, I've removed the decorations from the inflection charts. However, if it becomes necessary, they can be all easy to comment-out if we absolutely need to hide them to figure out a better way to deal with these issues. - Gilgamesh 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've commented out the templates at their convergence points at Template:qya-decl and Template:sjn-noun. This can be easily and instantly reversed by changing the top {{#if:| to {{#if:1|. When it's hidden, none of the templates will appear on any article. When it's shown, they'll all reappear on every article they're embedded on. Turn them off? Turn them on? We can do either now. It's a lights switch. It will probably help. I'm incredibly wikistressed right now. - Gilgamesh 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright. If I think about this too much, I'm going to get so stressed I'll get nauseous. But...let's...vastly simplify this. Based on the new facts I've seen, I'm not sure I can...salvage the extent of the declension templates as they currently exist. There is so much controversy to this, and I really didn't bargain on getting into the Tolkien equivilent of the VI/emacs debate. It doesn't sound like it's ever going to get less controversial than it already is, so I'm not sure I can continue it. However, I suppose I could stick to far less controversial facts. For the most part, in theory, the inflections of nouns are still regular (however they are done), as long as you know the noun's stem. This is not a complicated issue, and the stems seem far better documented than the entire tables of inflections. Only a brief mention of the stem would be necessary. For instance, the stem of Altáriel is Altáriell-. When not in the nominative case, you deal with that stem. And the stem of urco is urqu-. Things like that...then if you know the declensions by rote, it's easy. Alright, now. Is there, like...some sort of bot we can program to...remove the templates and the ==Inflection== segments? Like I said, if I think about this too much, I'm probably going to get sick. I just want this all done efficiently and as orthodoxly as possible. - Gilgamesh 05:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)