Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive12

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Uthanc in topic Request for comment on fictional characters guideline proposal
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15


Tolkien articles by quality statistics (worklist) :
Tolkien articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 2 4
FL 1 1
GA 9 50 108 66 233
B 9 45 59 113
C 29 75 1 105
Start 129 129
Stub 2 2
List 2 6 11 1 20
Category 171 171
Disambig 34 34
File 23 82 105
Project 3 3
Redirect 2 6 568 576
Template 43 43
NA 2 2
Other 1 4 5
Assessed 10 61 194 374 907 1,546
Unassessed 1 1
Total 10 61 194 374 907 1 1,547
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,882 Ω = 3.21
Shortcut
Archive
Archives

If anyone wants to pull out or copy a previous discussion, feel free to to do so.

Front page · Main discussion · Standards · Things to do · Assessment · Templates
Images · Watchlist (Recent changes)

Community

Roll call: January – March

Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments30 people in discussion

Please sign your name below and on the front page. Comments are optional.

Collaboration

Deletion proposals

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Strike out expired proposals with <s></s> and note result, moving deleted ones under Already deleted below. Please also add the links to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/AfD. Thanks.

Articles for deletion

Images for deletion

OldManWillow1.jpg‎ don't think this image is absolutely neccessary for the article, has any attempt been made to get permission, has an attempt been made to find an alternative.?87.102.114.215 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Quote "..Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information " -what information does this give - it's a picture of a (old) tree. Nothing more. If an illustration is really neccessary one could be created if wanted.

Redirects for deletion

Templates for deletion

Categories for deletion

Current practice when merging to lists is to leave redirects in the topic categories as well as the administrative "redirects" category. Sometimes this leaves topic categories with only a list and redirects. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Some recent CfD nominations are examining this practice.

Noting the categories and their discussions above. Carcharoth (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Already deleted

Recreated as redirect to Tolkien fandom#Tolkien societies, hope it's not wrong. Uthanc (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles newly made/found

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please ensure these are all added to Portal:Middle-earth/Pages. This is a list of all the pages related to the project, to allow related changes for that page to be used to watch changes to all the pages - please add template, categories and similar pages to that list as well. Though there should be periodic attempts to redo the list in a comprehensive fashion, keeping it up-to-date manually will be a great help. If you are uncertain about whether a page belongs there, list it at Portal talk:Middle-earth/Pages. Please also ensure that {{ME-project}} is added on the talk page of new articles, try to give them an initial assessment, and place them in the correct categories. The top level categories are Category:Tolkien and Category:Middle-earth.

Move/merge proposals

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Already merged

These can be tracked using Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality log

Best articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently we have 15 articles that are considered examples of the best articles we have. I am going to list them below so that people can enjoy reading them, help improve them, and have a model for articles they work on. These are from Category:FA-Class Tolkien articles (WP:FAC is a separate peer reviewed process); Category:A-Class Tolkien articles (examples of the best articles we have - effectively an internal wikiproject assessment); Category:GA-Class Tolkien articles (the WP:GA process is a separate review process). I haven't included any of the 85 current B-class articles at Category:B-Class Tolkien articles, but if any of those are especially good in your opinion, please re-assess, or list or discuss below. Also, please raise any concerns you have with these articles below, though remember to take extensive discussions to the article talk pages. It would be nice to update this every couple of months to see what progress is being made. Carcharoth 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC); 18 articles now – Súrendil (talk)

FA, A, and GA articles:

Issues

Valar

I've been thinking; despite the fact that none of them are marked as such, most of the articles on the Valar are stub-length at best, and many don't mention anything besides a few sentences. Though these characters are, of course, very important, would it be acceptable to merge them into the Valar article or create an article List of Valar? The ones with actually long articles (like Manwë or Aulë) would, of course, keep these articles, but I don't see the need for the article on Oromë, Estë, Tulkas, Vairë or the like, which have a few sentences or a paragraph at most. Again, these guys are extremely important, but Tolkein simply didn't write enough to get these articles past stub length. Thoughts? Dr. Extreme (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Have a go and leave a note here when you are done. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, I've planned to this for a long time, but I just don't like copy-paste merging. If you do, you're welcome, and with the Maiar also. Súrendil (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
All right. I just did a bunch of add-ins to the article Vala (Middle-earth). For the ones which I think deserve their own article (Manwë, Aulë, Ulmo, and Varda, to be exact) I copied and pasted most of the lead, and added a few details which I thought were worth mentioning in a quick overview. For the others, I basically reworded the entire article they had, except for a few, like Oromë or Tulkas, from which I cut a bit to keep the length down. I don't think anything important got cut. My language might have gotten a bit archaic, though. So once again: I think Manwë, Ulmo, Aulë, and Varda deserve their own articles, mainly because their deeds are better recorded in the legendarium. The others, I think, can be redirected (to the proper line, if possible). Of course, I don't want to be hasty, so feel free to edit/revert anything I've done. Dr. Extreme (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I think "don't be hasty" should be an official Wiki guideline, at least for Wiki-project Middle Earth.)
I changed the layout enabling more content from original pages to be preserved, and will shortly redirect all of them except Nienna – this is an example showing that Tolkien did write enough for an article. Of course later it should likewise be merged, as non-notable, but only when everything else is expanded accordingly in the list – it can be, and should. The Valar article as it stand now is awful, but this is a natural result of hateful copy-pastings. Maybe one day it will be rewritten. (PS On "don't be hasty", m:Immediatism and m:Eventualism can interest you.) Súrendil (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, damn. That's much better than my haphazard format. I guess I'd better learn a bit about formatting and wikifying, eh?Dr. Extreme (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit Peer Review

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Everyone, just to let you know I've requested a Peer Review of The Hobbit. A lot of editors have put in a lot of work to make it really good, hopefully this can help us make it even better. --Davémon (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review subpage – Súrendil (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there wasn't much feedback on the actual peer review, but with some good guidance and some debate on the Talk page (and a load of research) the article has substantially changed - hopefully for the better! In preparation for FA nomination, I've requested the League of Copyeditors take a look at The Hobbit. Of course, further input and feedback from WPME-ers would be great. Help tidying up the references is really needed.--Davémon (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Faramir GA nomination

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Mirlen has recently nominated Faramir for the Good article status. Comments by reviewer have been left on the talk page. A peer and GA review at the same time, huh... Súrendil (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(NB: I've merged contents of the former "achive10a" to archive9, so that dates don't overlap and pages are of more or less equal length. Also moved "archive11" to archive10, and archived October–December discussions to archive11. Possibly several more discussions can be pulled out and restarted. Súrendil (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC))
Started a new discussion at the Standards page about the points raised in Malachirality's comments. Súrendil (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gandalf

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all. I wanted to give a heads up to all involved that someone has nominated the page Gandalf for deletion here. So far they haven't provided a rationale but I wanted to give you all a heads up on this one. Redfarmer (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! The AfD closed with the result Speedy Keep. It appears that it was a mistake, since, as you mentioned, the nominator did not provide a rationale. – Psyche825 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Possibly he was trying to nominate one of the articles at Gandalf (disambiguation). That's the only reason I can think of. Oh well, maybe he will say something, but it seems like an honest mistake. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Assorted issues

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Apparently I can't help out for a while, but I'll be back sooner or later. Before I go, some things:

Ted Nasmith

I e-mailed Ted Nasmith about his images here, and he replied(!) after around a year.

My original e-mail (edited for anonymity):

Dear Mr. Nasmith, I am one of the many volunteer editors of Wikipedia (http://www.wiki.x.io/), a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge.

I respectfully request your permission to use your Tolkien illustrations found at your website, http://www.tednasmith.com, as Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is a multilingual open-content encyclopedia that strives for complete and reliable content. Volunteers from around the world collaboratively create content, but Wikipedia depends upon images to clearly illustrate that content - in this case, topics regarding J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy writings. It is to that noble end that I make this request. However, for Wikipedia to use your material, you must agree to the GNU Free Documentation License (often referred to as the GNU-FDL, or GFDL). In essence, the GFDL allows you to retain the copyright and authorship of your work, but grants permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely, and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely (e.g., "share-alike"). You can read the complete license at http://wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL. This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights The people at Wikipedia chose the GFDL because they consider it the best available tool for ensuring our encyclopedia can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates text and images. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website.

We also accept licensing of images under other free-content licenses like some Creative Commons licenses - see http://creativecommons.org for this. If you grant permission for use, we will credit you for your work, state that it is used with your permission, and provide a link back to your website. Please explicitly state under which license you grant permission.

Actually, one of us already contacted you back in August and you did give your consent. Thank you for that. As of now, you may see your work at

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Witch-king_of_Angmar (image added by me)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Balrog (likewise)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Durin's_Bane (likewise)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sauron (likewise)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Battle_of_the_Morannon (likewise)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Minas_Tirith (likewise)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tirion

and as a book cover, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Silmarillion (we didn't have to get your permission there). In total, there are 6 of your artworks (counting the cover) on Wikipedia; we've reused some for more than 1 article.

But since the one who contacted you before only relayed to us that you answered "I’m happy to accept this request, yes. And yes, I guess I am curious about what specific purpose they will serve.", some editors have questioned the legality of adding your images, since the specific details of the first request was never made known to us. I am writing you to obtain permission once and for all, to avoid any further snags. We put your images under "fair use", but it seems they don't strictly qualify because, among other reasons, there's always a chance someone will just make his or her own images about the topics we're using yours for and release them into the public domain (see http://wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_Use) - though it would be more desirable to have images from a professional and well-known artist. They also can't just be used for non-commercial use and "for Wikipedia only" (see http://wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy).

As of now, one of your images I uploaded at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:NasmithWitchKing.JPG (Éowyn vs. the Witch-king) is currently listed for deletion because of a possible copyright violation I can save it with your specific permission. You may notice that I've uploaded smaller versions of your works with watermarks on them. In case you give us permission this time, if you prefer, I will continue that practice in order to keep your name on them, so to speak. Alternately, you could allow us to upload the large versions of watermarked works, or smaller (or even full) versions of non-watermarked works.

I sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please advise your decision of this request by e-mail, and I will gratefully forward it to the Wikimedia Foundation (the parent organization of Wikipedia - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/). We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on Tolkien-related subjects, the article about yourself (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ted_Nasmith) and any others that might interest you. Please see the following article for more information: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

Thank you very much, and I hope you will consider accepting this request.

His reply (edited for anonymity):

Please accept my sincere apologies for failing to respond to your request for so long (it’s been a little over a year). ... I guess the line “but grants permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely, and even potentially use them commercially” suggested on the face of it that I was somehow signing away my commercial rights to my own art. It’s only now that I realize (I assume) that you mean “commercial use” in the sense of reproducing portions whole or in part of my work [and/or your entire biographical article] in other articles, papers or commentary of an educational kind which are available at a price, is that so? Perhaps you can clarify further, at any rate. Obviously my main concern as someone posting artworks—watermarked notwithstanding---is their ‘theft’ by others and then unauthorized reproduction in whole or in part. I need to know that I’m not signing away that fundamental right, of course.

Assuming you are able to reassure me on that primary point, then I’d be happy to sign on and resolve the impasse.

I think some of the above are gone/elsewhere, and I haven't replied to Nasmith yet. From what I understand from discussions with User:Csernica, we can't guarantee that someone won't use his or say, John Howe's art for commercial purposes. So all images by commercial artists (at least Nasmith's) must go, and I think some of them are in Commons. Where does this leave the images by Catherine Karina Chmiel (Boromir-Frodo) and Jenny Dolfen (the Faramirs)? Perhaps their licensing circumstances are different... Their respective uploaders should try to work things out. At least User:Tttom (Tom Loback) released his under the GFDL.

Actually, Jenny Dolfen's art mostly concerns the Fëanorions/ians; the Faramir arts are done by Anke. They were satisfied by the usage of this license {{Non-free fair use in}}, accompanied by (as required) "the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale." However, Ted Nasmith is more prominent and more involved in the "official" commerical purposes than either Anke or Dolfen, so I'm not entirely sure. If we classify Nasmith's art under non-free but qualify it as fair use FOR the purposes of critical commentary, it should be OK (and Nasmith won't be signing away his rights). See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images for further info. —Mirlen 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My view is that we should only use any images sparingly, and only use the commercial ones under a non-free license. We should also try and use a wide range. At least one artwork each from the "main artists" should be used on the article about artworks inspired by Tolkien, and a few by Tolkien on the article about his artwork (not yet written). Ted Nasmith's works should be removed from Commons and Wikipedia, as my reading of the above is that he is not fully releasing the artworks, and only used on Wikipedia under fair use. Which brings me to the next question. If you had to chose two, and only two, images to use in: (a) Ted Nasmith and (b) Art inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien (currently a redirect to a section, but with possibilities), which two would you chose? One for the artist article and one for the "Art inspired by" article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy, having to choose only two is going to be difficult. I think when most people think of Nasmith they think of his breathtaking landscapes, so maybe that's what we should focus on. I wonder if it would be worth inquiring what his favorite Tolkien illustration would be. His illustration of Gondolin comes to mind and maybe Tirion. Preferably something that showcases the detail of his illustrations but we have to keep in mind these will be displayed as thumbnails, so something that doesn't need to be viewed at high resolution to enjoy. I suppose for the "Art inspired by..." article it depends on which images we use for the other artists, we probably don't want multiple illustrations of the same thing, then again, if we found something all the major artists illustrated, it would be rather interesting to see something like Minas Tirith from the viewpoint of the different illustrators. --Hyarion (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Weapons

This may seem incredibly minor compared to the above: Hadhafang could easily be merged into Weapons of M-e, but I believe it was agreed upon by Carcharoth, I and another (a book cabal? ;-)) that movie stuff be excluded, as all articles should be primarily about the books (see weapons talk page). Perhaps movie embellishments could go under "Adaptations".

Keep up the editing! :-) Uthanc (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to merge Hadhafang into Production design of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, creating a new "Weapons" section to follow "Costumes". Some information from existing sections can be moved into it, and also some references to "Maegnas"/Sting etc. Súrendil (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rockall Plateau

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Possibly some are already aware of this (at least the author Dbachmann is), but have a look at Rockall Bank and Trough and this xls. It seems that since 1985(?) Gondor Seamount, Rohan Seamount, Isengard Ridge, Eriador Seamount, Edoras Bank and Fangorn Bank officially appear on maps, and the only resembling case is 2675 Tolkien. (The article also gives Lorien Knoll, but the official gazetteer doesn't; if someone has J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, pls also check "Undersea Landscape".) Maybe both articles should be categorised to Category:J. R. R. Tolkien, since Shire Country Park is alredy there? Súrendil (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice board

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Would anyone have any issues with the creation of a WP:M-E notice board? Compare to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board. - jc37 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. That looks like a better-organised version of this talk page! Then maybe this talk page could go back to long-term planning and more complex discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So should I take this as unanimous support, or no one else cares, or this talkpage is so cluttered, no one else noticed? : ) - jc37 21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I noticed it both here and even earlier on Carcharoth's talk, but feel quite neutral. Súrendil (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever works. We could make all discussions from sub-talk pages (lie Standards) redirect there. Uthanc (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Before we do this, let's try and decide what we want to go there, and what would stay here, and how to handle the archives of this talk page as well. Start new archives at the noticeboard? Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The last step before "going live", this page should probably be moved as an archive, to "start over". - jc37 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Though I'm not opposed to it, perhaps instead of a noticeboard, we could make more use of Template:ME-Announce, directing people to the discussions instead of having them on the noticeboard. That would also take care of the archive question. – Psyche825 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Man Willow

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

made some tidying edits to it, also moved some content to Willow (about folklore) should anyone want to add more that's the place for it.

Also got to question whether the copyrighted image is neccessary - ie does the article actually need an image.

Also question the value of the infobox - which reads like a gaming card eg "character_weapon = Magical Drowsiness, Roots, Branches "..

I removed those two bits.

The page turns up in category:stubs (tolkien) in the box labelled "WikiProject Middle-earth Open Tasks" as found top right in Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/things to do - I don't think it is but havent removed it.. I'll leave that to someone else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.114.215 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits, and thanks for mentioning them here. I agree that the image and infobox don't do much. The infobox had been redesigned to be less like a gaming card (eg. an attempt to focus on literary stuff, like naming the books the character appears in), but obviously it still appears to much like a gaming card. Some of the material removed could be sourced or used in other articles - I personally wouldn't trim as much as you have, but that is your editorial style. I will source anything I add back, but that is not likely to happen for a while. Carcharoth (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


______________ From Karo6:

I am not certain I'm in the right place, please direct me if my interjection here is not procedurally correct. The article on "Old Man Willow" may require emendation where it lists "race" as "uncertain, possibly Huorn." The salient quote in FotR leaves the matter of OMW's origin somewhat vague when compared with an earlier version composed around the summer of 1938. Is there a place where this might be discussed?

"Tom's words laid bare the hearts of trees and their thoughts, which were often dark and strange, and filled with hatred of things that go free upon the earth, gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning: destroyers and usurpers. ... the fathers of the trees, remembering times when they were lords. The countless years had filled them with pride and rooted wisdom, and with malice. But none were more dangerous than the Great Willow: his heart was rotten, but his strength was green; and he was cunning, and a master of winds, and his song and thought ran through the woods on both sides of the river. His grey thirsty spirit drew power out of the earth and spread like fine root-threads in the ground, and invisible twig-fingers in the air, till it had under its dominion nearly all the trees of the Forest from the hedge to the Downs." (Rotk, hb ver, p. 141)


But, in an earlier version of this passage, we have the same general quote which has some significant data that was later cut from the final LotR.

In a note from Chris Tolkien: "The passage concerning Old Man Willow was first written thus: ' Amongst his talk there was here and there much said of Old Man Willow, and Merry learned enough to content him (more than enough, for it was not comfortable lore), though not enough for him to understand how that grey thirsty earth-bound spirit had become imprisoned in the greatest Willow of the Forest. The tree did not die, though its heart went rotten, while the malice of the Old Man drew power out of earth and water, and spread like a net, like fine root-threads in the ground, and invisible twig-fingers in the air, till it had infected or subjugated nearly all the trees on both sides of the valley.' " (HIST. vol 1, "Return of the Shadow," pp. 120-121)

Apparently Old Man Willow was originally a composite creature, part evil "disembodied" spirit, and part a simple willow tree. No mention is made here of either Ents or their lesser sidekicks, the Huorns, who had not yet been invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.176.186.59 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Bombadil

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Various problems here similar to above. I removed the 'dungeons and dragons' template giving his alignment as hermit - why not describe him as 'neutral chaotic' whilst at it (sarcasm)

Seriously I have removed the image - which is copyrighted - I don't see particularily what purpose this image serves - or why not a non copyrighted image would not serve as well.

Also removed literally ridiculous amounts of original research/own analysis, repetition, excessive plot info, irrevelant info, etc etc.

Also corrected the lotr emphasis in the intro - he has his own book...

Are many of the more notable articles as bloated as this one? I dare not look87.102.114.215 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no non-copyrighted or non-derivative images of Tom Bombadil. The fair use rationale for that image says "To illustrate first and most iconic illustration of Tom Bombadil" - you should really address that if you want to remove it. I agree that it shouldn't be the lead image - I don't think any character articles should have lead images (they are literary characters, after all), but sometimes an image in an "adaptations" or "books" section may be justified. Again, much of what you removed needed to go (and thanks for that), but some of the so-called "original research" can be sourced to whoever said this, but we haven't got round to fixing this yet (many times we are working with very old articles that were written without sources). As above, if I add anything back (either in that article or a more suitable one), I will source it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I did read the rational for use of the image . and paused. In this case I coudn't really accept it - it's not a Tolkien created image (is this correct), and merely portrays Bombadil as described in the book (he is described very clearly). So I don't see here that being the first is especially relevent. (I'm not going to ask if permission has been sought from fantasticfiction.co.uk for it's use)
As for derivative works - I someone produces an image for the purposes of illustrating this article - that would be acceptable (I imagine) People do produce drawings/diagrams for wikipedia and I see no reason why this project should be the same. Maybe someone (older) than me will know that this really is The Iconic Image, the sort of criteria I'm looking for is "nobody really knows what MrX looks like, but luckily the Author drew him - and hence we include the picture" - not the case here by a long shot.83.100.183.231 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, there's a sort of vicious circle that comes into things like this. If the picture is of Tom Bombadil, it's a derivative work, because it's derived from the description or from other pictures. If the picture's not a derivative work, then it's not a picture of Tom Bombadil. QED. I think it's easier to just include the description, since there's no image truly representative of Tom Bombadil, and he's been in precious few adaptations.Dr. Extreme (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring tricky legal issues - a copyright free derivative picture of Bombadil would raise none of the issues I personally had with using a copyrighted image.. I doubt there would be a great likely hood of objections (from the Tolkien estate) if someone (hopefully vaguely talented) drew a Bombadil image and put it up here. 83.100.183.231 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've now remembered that this has been discussed before, though you've both added new points. See Commons:Commons:Fan art and Commons:Commons talk:Fan art. Please create accounts over there and contribute to that (mostly moribund) debate, or add your reactions here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another approach to the art problem

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Externalimages?

Ted Nasmith's watermarked art really needs to be deleted. Speedily? I've already removed one image from Balrog. How should I reply to his e-mail (above?) "Thank you, but it appears we cannot host your art on our servers to prevent their inappropriate commercial use. We are going to link to your art instead. We are sorry for the inconvenience, and regret the error."Uthanc (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest "The problem here seems to be the generality of the GFDL license which we have no control over and must use - therefor we must remove your artwork since we cannot prevent unauthorised copying.. " + the sorries...

- I have no idea if there can be specific licenses restricting use to wikipedia alone (seems not at present)- which he agreed to (above topic). If this is not possible I'd send that e-mail adding that the generality of the license means we can't prevent unauthorised republishment... etc

So

See Crown of Gondor for the template used. Neat, eh? Uthanc (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Nice template - but isn't that (specific example) linking to a site that uses a copyrighted image without permission. Naughty.?77.86.8.83 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also in terms of linking to artists - is it not considered best to add links in an external links section rather than deep linking such as found here Court of the Fountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.183.231 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of images

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looking at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images (the guidelines for use of non free images) It would seem that most of the images from the peter jackson films of the lotr fall into the category "not" - since they are not used for 'critical commentary' here (possibly on the films own page this would make sense- in some cases - I was not including that) - in fact most seem to fall under the category 'used to illustrate an article about a thing/person/place in tolkien's work that also appears in the films'.. eg Book of Mazarbul

Yes the images make the articles look nice, no they are not in general really neccessary eg Image:Book of Mazarbul.jpg :quote

Rationale for the fair use of this image in Book of Mazarbul:
The image is used to demonstrate the film's distinctive graphical style
The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the film
The image does not limit New Line Cinema's ability to sell or show the film
Inclusion of the image into the article adds significally to the understanding of the topic

(end quote)

1 is irrelevent. 2 and 3 are true but not reason in themselves. 4 is not true

Should all images like this (excepting those as I mentioned above such as those found relating to a discussion of the cinematography in jackson's films) be removed?83.100.183.231 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Film/cartoon images are necessary to illustrate and discuss different incarnations of characters, concepts, etc.from adaptations, since there are no free use images available for these specific purposes. We ahould make an "adaptations" section mandatory for all applicable articles (if it isn't already). There's some discussion in archives where this was decided, I think - User:Carcharoth and an image of Viggo Mortensen was involved. See Gollum, for example. Those with access to sources should get images from the cartoons and whatever else. We should also get image rationales updated or completed... I agree that we can't just plonk film images in articles. Uthanc (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Warg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

are my edits to warg ok? eg http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Warg&diff=191872567&oldid=19043746077.86.8.83 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Saruman

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I started off adding refs to Saruman and ended up pretty much re-writing it. My apologies to those who contributed to previous versions. My concern was that in its previous state the article was almost entirely a summarised history of Saruman, which as I understand WP:WAF, isn't what we should have. Anyway, I'd be grateful for any comments and suggestions. I'd also be really grateful if anyone could add material on book Saruman from any critics other than Tom Shippey - at present the article is based almost entirely on JRRT's original works and letters, CJT's edited commentary, and Shippey's two books. All of which are rather positive and quite close to home - if anyone could find some negative comment on the effectiveness of the character, that would be a good addition (Ive already looked at Epic Pooh and 'Ooh, those awful orcs', the two most often mentioned negative reviews, and Sharkey's not mentioned in either. Thanks in advance. 4u1e (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Saruman is still pretty bloated. The references need attention, too: references from LotR should include a chapter name, at least; page number without chapter name is not helpful, as indicated in the Project Guidelines. Elphion (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
See talk:Saruman for initial response. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

there are currently about 130 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here. (I'm aware that you sort those articles in an own category, nevertheless I wanted to let you know.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left an initial reply on B. Wolterding's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The relevant bits from my reply are below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just dropping a few links off here to help anyone who wants to go more in-depth on this particular set of articles. In essence, I'm saying that we are aware of the problems, we are working on it albeit sporadically and slowly.

In particular, see my comment in December 2007 (here) about the overall number of articles:

"When the next update occurs, the number of unassessed articles should be below 400. At around this time last year (see here) there were 1368 unassessed articles (including redirects and stubs). At that time (11 December 2006) there were a total of 1399 articles tagged with {{ME-project}}. The current update (30 November 2007) shows a total of 1067 articles, which shows that some progress has been made with merging (though more work needs doing). The short-term aim should be to get the total below 1000. I think, with the right sort of merging, that the total number of articles should number in the hundreds, rather than over 1000."

To update that, the current table shows 309 unassessed articles and a total of 933 articles. I think this shows further, albeit still slow, progress from the total of 418 unassessed from a total of 1067 articles at the end of November 2007. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be merged

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After perusing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Wizarding War and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) I'm thinking Category:Middle-earth battles should be combined into appropriate articles, the sooner the better, before any AfD proposals force us to take action. The same goes for Category:Middle-earth objects, locations, many characters, and other assorted info. Regarding all of these, especially battles, Tolkien's writings have had the advantage of several years worth of scholarship so we may be able to keep certain articles where they are. "Critical response" info like in Battle of the Pelennor Fields would really help. Uthanc (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

High Pass

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Middle-earth folks, the article High Pass is currently in need of some disambiguation help. It would be nice if we had a disambiguation page located under that title. High Pass (Oregon) was recently created, and there are three other High Passes in the United States, as well as a High Pass Lake, not to mention numerous High Passes around the world. There's also High-pass filter. So I'm requesting help in moving Middle-earth's High Pass to a new location. I see the article currently has a template suggesting a merger with Misty Mountains, and another editor suggested it could be moved to Cirith Forn en Andrath. Of course, it could also be moved to High Pass (Middle-earth). As High Pass is part of a Tolkien template, I thought you all would be best prepared to handle a potential move. Thoughts? Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Uthanc (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Durin IV

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Several articles claim that Durin IV fought with the Last Alliance against Sauron. Is there any textual support for this? Elphion (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The hobbit refs and info need help with article

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I haven't read the Hobbit just the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. I need citations for the article Dol Guldur which already has most of the refs from the two books I've mentioned. I just need Hobbit info and refs added in. LOTRrules (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on fictional characters guideline proposal

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Figured I'd bring this to the attention of this project, since I think it's something that affects most folks here, the setting of a baseline of notability for fictional characters: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance (viz, for example, most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth Dwarves). Feel free to comment. Ford MF (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Fortunately those are mostly redirects.
  2. When in doubt, merge.
  3. References. Uthanc (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive12&oldid=1252038553"