Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Tolkien Gateway talk:Featured articles/Nominations

Discussion page of Tolkien Gateway:Featured articles/Nominations
Latest comment: 7 March 2011 by Breragor in topic Criteria
Want to chat about Tolkien in real-time?
Join our Discord server for discussions, collaboration, and a vibrant community!

Nomination limits

Let's try to hold the nominations down to 2 or 3 at a time. Hyarion wants to concentrate on bringing more articles up to standards, and I agree.--Theoden1 16:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


I think we should come up with better criteria for nominating an article. Some people have mentioned pictures, references, and sources as necessary components - I'll agree. Yet saying we cannot use this article becuase it has no footnotes, when the Featured Article doesn't have any cannot work out. Can we establish a formal list of criteria? --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O.o Eriador has 45 footnotes. But yes, I agree, it's a good idea to establish a list of criteria. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  10:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recall coming up with a list a year or so back, but I can't recall where it is. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A FA must:

  • Describe an important event, artifact or person, be it in the real-world or in Arda.
  • Have a limited amount of redlinks (5%?).
  • Have full sourcing.
  • Have some good images.
  • Have a bulk of text in the "History" section.
  • Have (if available) a full "Portrayal in Adaptations" section.
  • Have (if available) a full genealogy in the familytree template.
  • Have (if available) an "Other Versions of the Legendarium" section.
  • Have as many relevant templates (disambigs, see also's, navigation, pronounce) as possible.
  • Have language links if available.
  • Have a "Merchandise" section (for Decipher Cards, Games Workshop, chess pieces et cetera).
I'm broadly in agreement with the above, but I would add "location" to the list of acceptable topics and take out the requirement for a "Merchandise" section. My own proposals would look like this:-
  1. The text is entirely written by TG editors with correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation;
  2. There are no outstanding maintenance templates on the article;
  3. The article is well referenced throughout, leaving the reader under no illusions as to where to source information themselves;
  4. The article conforms to TG's Standards, as well as those laid out in the relevant Project;
  5. The text is sprinkled with relevant images (including captions) of appropriate size - if necessary, including a gallery;
  6. Articles are at least 5,000 bytes long (for comparison, that's the current revisions of Beorn or Tar-Aldarion);
  7. Where applicable, contains "History", "Portrayal in Adaptations", "In Other Versions of the Legendarium", "See Also", "Genealogy", "Etymology" and "Bibliography" sections;
  8. Where applicable, full use has been made of relevant templates, e.g.: disambiguation, see also, main, navigation, pronounce, familytree;
  9. Where applicable, contains interwiki links;
  10. Preferably no red-links, but no more than half-a-dozen.
For me, any article which can tick those boxes should be an FA (and is currently how I judge articles). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  17:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, under "References" on Eriador is bibliographical information, not footnotes (perhaps we have been taught different things). Regardless, I like the criteria, yet it still seems too objective. --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there is a difference between a bibliography and footnotes. What were you taught footnotes are? -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  08:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's irrelevant and that we should focus on the criteria, but Wikipedia says this:
  • As signposts to direct the reader to information the author has provided or where further useful information is pertaining to the subject in the main text.
  • To attribute to a quote or viewpoint.
  • As an alternative to parenthetical references; it is a simpler way to acknowledge information gained from another source.
  • To escape the limitations imposed on the word count of various academic and legal texts which do not take into account notes. Aggressive use of this strategy can lead the text to be seen as affected by what some people call "footnote disease".
I always held with the first point as "supreme", but there are multiple meanings.--Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 01:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to have a dangerous habit of telling people their answers are "irrelevant" when they answer you. I kindly ask that you cease this practice.
In any case, I'm not sure where you got your information from because Wikipedia:Footnotes follows the exact same practice that we follow: "Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes: to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article; or, to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article." If you go to the "Advanced" section of the page, you see that they separate out "Notes" and "References" in the same way we do. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will not be ceasing my "habit," Mith, because my definition of a footnote is irrelevant in this discussion and so is yours! This is about criteria, not the definition, so please don't worry about that and I will stop my "habit." Because, you see, now we are talking about our definitions and NOT about the criteria, so you can easily see how I would not want to go down this path. Thank you. --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 01:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's irrelevant, let's talk about what you think footnotes are. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is so funny...--Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 20:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know right, it's almost as funny as not knowing what footnotes are. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  21:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, your definition of a footnote is surely crucial to your understanding of how to interpret the FA criteria.
Second, your tangential misunderstanding of a footnote has completely side-tracked this conversation.
Third, I shall take the criteria to a meeting, and we can vote on it there; you are free to attend a meeting to argue your case, of course (whatever you case actually is).--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's interesting how this site, with not very many active users, has users who don't want it to grow or better. You'd rather argue with me and try and get higher on your horse than just be nice and work and collaborate. You are making this an exclusive, and not very fun, place to be, so I can assure you I won't be returning. All the freinds I've told about it, they'll be told so too. Thank you all, and I hope you realize your ruining the future of this site. --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 18:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering that you haven't contributed anything to this site I won't lose much sleep over your dramatic departure. Bye old buddy! -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  18:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just love it, though - instead of wanting to help someone like me learn the site and all you just wanted to bash me and make fun of me. Congrats - you now have three active members on the site! You have scared everyone else off and this site is never gonna grow with people acting like you guys here!--Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 19:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whenever you have asked for our help you scorned the advice and cast it off as 'irrelevant'. We've tried to help you but you really haven't contributed anything to this site. You have 19 edits on the main part of the site and it took you 10 of that to remove '{{stub}}' from Théodred. If you want to make a meaningful contribution to this encyclopaedia then please do, otherwise what are you doing here? -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I'm sure you have the history of every time I asked for help...--Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 22:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi guys, it seems we've gotten a bit off track here from a valid discussion and forgotten the fact that we're all Tolkien fans helping to build a better encyclopedia. KingAragorn, I'm disappointed you would question the contributions of anyone willing to take the time to register and edit on the site. Breragor, I'm sure you understand sometimes statements can be taken as more aggressive than they are intended. Let's spend our time on more enjoyable things than arguing on the Internet. --Hyarion 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not forget that Breragor took 'the time to register and edit on the site' to recruit and advertise for a game he was in. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  23:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boy, you really like to delve into my history on this site - you have waaaay too much free time. Sorry, bud. --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]