User talk:Aule the Smith

From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 30 August 2010 by Mith in topic Meeting - Sunday 5th September
Welcome to Aule the Smith's talk page.

Aule the Smith, welcome!

Hello and welcome to Tolkien Gateway. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and we look forward to your future edits. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Council forums or ask me on my talk page. Keep up the great work! — Hyarion


Eruro Aras... Did you translate that yourself or did you get that out of a "name generator"? Note: Tolkien didn't use "Eru" in names. Men used "Vala", Elves didn't invoke deities in their name at all. -- Ederchil 17:08, 9 February 2008 (EST)

It's a very rough translation of my name I did myself, using this article; Eru- fits much better than Vala- and I'm not claiming to be an Elf, just stealing their language :P --Aule the Smith 03:13, 10 February 2008 (EST)
This is a must-read before translating names. What does the -ro stand for anyway? I can only think of "Joey Deere" -- Ederchil 05:33, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Very close! It's actually "Joey Roe". The -ro is from aro, addition. So, Eruro = Eru-aro = God adds = "The LORD will increase" = Joseph ;) --Aule the Smith 09:53, 10 February 2008 (EST)

"Idea for structure"

I personally vote for bringing "cast" (maybe rename as "Voice cast"?) before "Accuracy". But that's just me. All films need some structure too. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giant Family Tree

As per this discussion, I've deleted the sub-pages of User:Aule the Smith/GiantFamilyTree; they were causing trouble for the bot. It is possible to undelete these pages, so if you want to continue work on the family trees, drop me a line. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've noticed you're using a custom signature which isn't a template; I thought you might be interested in this: Help:Signatures. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, thanks. I'd forgotten about that. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're very welcome! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could you leave the infoboxes, alone, please. I'm in the middle of working on them (and haven't finished), and when you edit it creates an edit conflict which is irritating. Thanks. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think one edit conflict is a big deal. This is a wiki after all. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a big deal, it's an irritating one, as I said. I was clearly in the middle of something and you interrupted, that's all.
I'm sorry for that, but I just wanted to show you that being patronising is not a particularly amicable quality to be exhibiting. You're a good editor, I don't deny, but some of your comments and actions have ruffled feathers amongst some editors and I just ask that you "look before you leap" a little more often. Please take this, as it's intended, as friendly advice rather than antagonistic criticism. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some editors? I only see one here. Keep your advice. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 09:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no need to be so defensive (or dismissive and rude). I thought the "I only see one here" might be your retort: I wasn't going to embarrass any other editor by naming names - if they want to express their opinions they are free to do so but I don't think I should do it on their behalf. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, "there's no need to be so defensive (or dismissive and rude)" is exactly what I thought about your original message. Let me express my profoundest regret if you feel I haven't been wrapping my jibes in the requisite number of hypocritical niceties, I'll endeavour to live up to your high standard in that regard from now on. Perhaps rudeness is something I am guilty of and you are not, but to be quite honest in the few weeks since I started editing I've reached my limit with your dismissive treatment of legitimate concerns I have raised (e.g. reverting my edits without giving a reason) and defensive attitude when it comes to your own activities (e.g. having things deleted from my user page rather than make your bot behave). If by being overly blunt I have in fact offended other editors then I am sincerely sorry, but as far as you are concerned as I said above I would prefer that you just butt out unless I do something genuinely disruptive that requires admin intervention. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 14:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies if my message seemed defensive, dismissive or rude to you, but it doesn't read so to me and that really was not my intent. I was in the middle of something and wanted to avoid interruptions, that's all. (If ever I want to edit an article someone else has been working on, I make sure that I leave a reasonable buffer of time so as to avoid this sort of things. I thought everyone did it, but perhaps not. To avoid misunderstanding: this is a comment, not a criticism.)
With regards to reverting (two) edits, unfortunately when I press "revert" there's no ability to add an edit summary, but with one article both I and KA had stated it should stay in its particular category; the other was a judgement I took (which I have since explained fully) in that I would like our articles to have the very highest standard of referencing so that the sort of criticisms we have suffered over on LOTRPlaza can be avoided. Gandalf should be one of our very best articles and I don't want that ambition inhibited in any way. However, I apologise if my actions offended you, but, just to clarify, "revert" doesn't have the sort of stigma here that you may have seen elsewhere: it's just a quick way of undoing something (and editors undo things all the time, that is part and parcel of a wiki).
With regards to the user page, the fault wasn't with the bot, it was when we were having server problems and just as users received 500 server errors, the bot did too. That's neither my fault nor your fault, it's just one of those things. I had to make a clumsy work-around which really wasn't ideal (as that had a knock-on effect). I have never been defensive over this issue, only explanatory.
To be honest with you, Aule, I don't think "butting out" is possible: we are a small wiki with little room to manoeuvre - we will continue to have dealings with one another beyond potentially "genuinely disruptive" behaviour. Is it not possible that you can civil rather than asking I butt out? I don't want bad blood between us, nor do I want ill-feeling to reverberate around. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "undo" function reverts edits while allowing you to add a summary. I am not saying you should not revert, nor is it important what reasons you are now giving for the Gandalf example (I wasn't even aware of the other), but just that reversions should almost always be accompanied by a description. The reason should be obvious: reverting is not constructive like any other edit, it is saying to the previous editor "your contribution was wrong; worthless", and it very well might be, but that is quite a thing to say to somebody with no extra context. I'll cautiously link to what Wikipedia has to say on the subject, not because it's a Wikipedia "policy" I think we should adopt on TG, but because it's a facet of wiki software generally that the world's largest wiki happens to explain well.
As I hinted at before, I do not consider civility to be just a matter of polite words, but polite actions. While my suggestions may have been blunt, brazen, strongly worded, and many other things, they were all made with good intent (i.e. improving the wiki). I will work on my P's and Q's if you can learn to 'assume good faith' in the future, how's that? —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am, to be honest, insulted at the suggestion that I need to learn to assume good faith (as if I think you're out to ruin this wiki). I am rather upset. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevertheless, that is the impression you have left me with. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 16:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Play nicely. ;) I think Mith was within his rights to ask you not to cause edit conflicts whilst he's working on the infoboxes. Aule, being "blunt, brazen, strongly worded" isn't necessarily a good thing, it can alienate people and drive members of this small community away; nonetheless it is possible to be blunt on issues whilst being polite. Just my thoughts. Both of you are great editors - I wouldn't want to see you two not getting along over a couple of little disputes. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  00:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup Templates

Although I accept that there is a need to standardise the maintenance templates, I'm worried that the new style a little too subtle and blends into the background a little too much: I get great motivation to improve an article by removing a garish template. If they are too subtle I'm a bit worried that they will be too easily ignored. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't intend to replace any existing templates. I just found a need for a new one ({{footnotes}}) and thought I might as well do it in the style I'd been working on. The {{update}} template was broken so I redid that one too (nothing uses it atm anyway). If some time in the future it's collectively decided that we'd like standardised maintenance templates I'd hope the template I just made could serve as the base, but obviously before that there would have to be wider consultation and a more thoughtful design process (I just slapped together a copy of the wikipedia style). —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 14:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks for clearing that up. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Having early names of something in a section called "Other versions of the Legendarium" is alright with me, since it fits the section title. However, I'm just thinking that when we only present early or different names, then this can as well go in the "Etymology" section. Etymology, being the study of the origins of words, includes the study of "[c]hanges in the form and meaning of the word [...] traced with the aid of older texts, if such are available" (i.e., philology). But in those cases where we also present the different ideas connected to an earlier name, it is perhaps more approriate with "Other versions of the Legendarium". Hope I make sense! --Morgan 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I was thinking of it more as an in-universe vs. out-of-universe thing. Words in Tolkien's work have their own fictional etymologies (though sometimes these are linked to 'out-of-universe' languages e.g. Smaug), and I think that is what we should consider their true "origin" and historical development. The succession of names Tolkien applied to a particular concept could also, I suppose, be called etymology (but I'd argue that the true 'history' aspect is missing there), but that really does seem to me to be more an exercise in tracing the author's thought and textual history, if that makes sense? —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 22:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, do you have any thoughts on this? —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 22:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it makes sense. (I have recently started to become aware of how we often use "Etymology" on TG for mere translations of (mostly) Elvish names - maybe there should be a different heading?).
Concerning that I'm sorry to say that neither I have the linguistic skill (perhaps User:Sage has something to contribute?).

Meeting - Sunday 5th September

Hi, Aule (the Smith)! Just a quick message to inform you that we are holding our next Meeting on Sunday, 5th September 2010 at 7pm UTC. Whether you are or aren't able to attend, please sign your name on the here. Hope to see you on Sunday! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]