![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was thinking about possibly getting some of the Ted Nasmith illustartions from the Silmarillion up particulary for the Manwe and Turin article. - Dhawk1964 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Regards, Ted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawk1964 ( talk • contribs)
Middle-earth is being considered for removal of its featured article status. Please go to the review and try to address the concerns. If this is not done soon it will likely lose its featured status. Joelito ( talk) 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a Quenya language Wikipedia on the incubator site. The 'incubator' is something Wikimedia started recently to allow proposed projects to build articles and show whether they are actually viable or not. Anyone interested in Quenya might want to check it out. -- CBD 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Middle-earth. I tried to improve the article, but ran out of time. I think that it will be possible to improve it and resubmit it at some future date. I won't have time to do this until October, but do others have time before then to work on it? Carcharoth 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just discovered the existence of
WP:WAF, which was created during my wikibreak, and I have now updated the
Standards page to match the style guide.
New additions:
Changes:
Make sure to read the updated version, because there are crucial changes. — Mir l e n 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I loathe redirects. I have always felt that if you are going to link to the article, might as well link to the bread and butter and not to the packaging. i went through today and changed all the links from Hobbits to Hobbit, save where it was either archived or on a User Talk page. Yes, it was a minor thing, but in my mind it was an important step to get the articles to a GA status. - KaoBear (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same way as Kaobear. From some reason I just don't like clicking on redirect links. -- Ted87 20:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I created a new toy and am not quite sure what to do with it -->
Click for random article.
Refresh the page / purge cache to get the link to update to a new random article. Your thoughts on how / whether this might be useful are welcome. --
CBD
20:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was to change. — Mir l e n 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look at 2.3.2 in Me:S, the headings have been matched to follow WP:WAF and most of the G.A./F.A. fictional character articles. Since Appearances replaces Biography, and is used in a more OOU context — should we merge Portrayal in adaptations into Appearances — after all, it does describe all the character's apperances in a certain media. The only thing that makes me a little hesistant is because film, radio, and theatre are all adapatations outside the creator's work — unlike how it is with Star Wars characters or video game characters, such as Padmé Amidala and Wario. I was thinking of the following subsections under Appearances:
|
|
|
I like the first plan out of all of them. Also, in the naming of headings under the Appearances section, I think there needs to be some sort of distinction between the canon information of the character's biography and (semi) non-canon media (film, stage, radio, etc.)...or perhaps Adaptations is a sufficient name to make that kind of distinction.
Comments? — Mir l e n 20:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Some time ago (if you look back in the archives), you can see that the {{ ME-fact}} template was created in the likness of {{ Fact}} template. I want to do the same with other Wikipedia templates (i.e. cleanup, expand, in-universe, etc.) — except that it would used purely for Tolkien articles (i.e. just like how there are different kinds of stub templates). The purpose in doing so is to make it easier for us to see which Tolkien articles need improvement, instead of having to sift through the massive 400+ list in categories. In short, the purpose is for organisational means. If there aren't any objections or comments, I'll take it as an affirmative to go ahead....Comments? — Mir l e n 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
All remaining articles using {{
Infobox Tolkien}} and {{
Infobox LOTR}} have been changed to {{
Tolkienchar}}.
—wwoods
22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a nice Tolkien article related stub as well as a section of Tolkien related article stub. — Mir l e n 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Themes in The Lord of the Rings violates "no original research" and "only use reliable sources". Also, some misinformed editor put racism charges in the article and in its talk page. (The J. R. R. Tolkien article itself has recently added a "views"section, which needs expanding/tweaking/watching, mainly to counter sweeping "Tolkien was a racist" statements.) Uthanc 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed some article assessment stuff appearing in articles recently. I think they are intended to perform 2 funtions: (1) assess the quality of an article, and (2) assess the core importance of an article (ie. Middle-earth is more important that Eol - think of which article you would want to see published in a print version of Wikipedia). Are there any guidelines on how to carry out article assessements for this WikiProject? I'm going to look at the general guidelines and get started with assessing. Carcharoth 10:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
And now we have: Category:Top-importance_Tolkien_articles! Carcharoth 11:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) And now we have: Category:Tolkien_articles_by_quality! Carcharoth 11:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
More tags on the articles than text in the article. Surely someone should have cleaned this up by now? Dwarf_runes. Carcharoth 14:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This was an old plan, but I wanted to start it again now that we have a sufficient amount of members (though I realize that most of our members tend to be gnomish in nature, which is perfectly fine, of course ^^).
If you see here, three Tolkien related articles participants here have majorly contributed to are listed there as paragons :). In time, I know we can do this with a majority of Tolkien related articles. So, I wanted to start a collaboration for Tolkien related articles. I want the collaboration to be fortnightly, but considering the current status of activity in our participants I would say it'd be best to have the collaborations monthly. Comments? — Mir l e n 00:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was thinking about possibly getting some of the Ted Nasmith illustartions from the Silmarillion up particulary for the Manwe and Turin article. - Dhawk1964 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Regards, Ted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawk1964 ( talk • contribs)
Middle-earth is being considered for removal of its featured article status. Please go to the review and try to address the concerns. If this is not done soon it will likely lose its featured status. Joelito ( talk) 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a Quenya language Wikipedia on the incubator site. The 'incubator' is something Wikimedia started recently to allow proposed projects to build articles and show whether they are actually viable or not. Anyone interested in Quenya might want to check it out. -- CBD 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Middle-earth. I tried to improve the article, but ran out of time. I think that it will be possible to improve it and resubmit it at some future date. I won't have time to do this until October, but do others have time before then to work on it? Carcharoth 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just discovered the existence of
WP:WAF, which was created during my wikibreak, and I have now updated the
Standards page to match the style guide.
New additions:
Changes:
Make sure to read the updated version, because there are crucial changes. — Mir l e n 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I loathe redirects. I have always felt that if you are going to link to the article, might as well link to the bread and butter and not to the packaging. i went through today and changed all the links from Hobbits to Hobbit, save where it was either archived or on a User Talk page. Yes, it was a minor thing, but in my mind it was an important step to get the articles to a GA status. - KaoBear (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same way as Kaobear. From some reason I just don't like clicking on redirect links. -- Ted87 20:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I created a new toy and am not quite sure what to do with it -->
Click for random article.
Refresh the page / purge cache to get the link to update to a new random article. Your thoughts on how / whether this might be useful are welcome. --
CBD
20:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was to change. — Mir l e n 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look at 2.3.2 in Me:S, the headings have been matched to follow WP:WAF and most of the G.A./F.A. fictional character articles. Since Appearances replaces Biography, and is used in a more OOU context — should we merge Portrayal in adaptations into Appearances — after all, it does describe all the character's apperances in a certain media. The only thing that makes me a little hesistant is because film, radio, and theatre are all adapatations outside the creator's work — unlike how it is with Star Wars characters or video game characters, such as Padmé Amidala and Wario. I was thinking of the following subsections under Appearances:
|
|
|
I like the first plan out of all of them. Also, in the naming of headings under the Appearances section, I think there needs to be some sort of distinction between the canon information of the character's biography and (semi) non-canon media (film, stage, radio, etc.)...or perhaps Adaptations is a sufficient name to make that kind of distinction.
Comments? — Mir l e n 20:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Some time ago (if you look back in the archives), you can see that the {{ ME-fact}} template was created in the likness of {{ Fact}} template. I want to do the same with other Wikipedia templates (i.e. cleanup, expand, in-universe, etc.) — except that it would used purely for Tolkien articles (i.e. just like how there are different kinds of stub templates). The purpose in doing so is to make it easier for us to see which Tolkien articles need improvement, instead of having to sift through the massive 400+ list in categories. In short, the purpose is for organisational means. If there aren't any objections or comments, I'll take it as an affirmative to go ahead....Comments? — Mir l e n 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
All remaining articles using {{
Infobox Tolkien}} and {{
Infobox LOTR}} have been changed to {{
Tolkienchar}}.
—wwoods
22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a nice Tolkien article related stub as well as a section of Tolkien related article stub. — Mir l e n 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Themes in The Lord of the Rings violates "no original research" and "only use reliable sources". Also, some misinformed editor put racism charges in the article and in its talk page. (The J. R. R. Tolkien article itself has recently added a "views"section, which needs expanding/tweaking/watching, mainly to counter sweeping "Tolkien was a racist" statements.) Uthanc 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed some article assessment stuff appearing in articles recently. I think they are intended to perform 2 funtions: (1) assess the quality of an article, and (2) assess the core importance of an article (ie. Middle-earth is more important that Eol - think of which article you would want to see published in a print version of Wikipedia). Are there any guidelines on how to carry out article assessements for this WikiProject? I'm going to look at the general guidelines and get started with assessing. Carcharoth 10:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
And now we have: Category:Top-importance_Tolkien_articles! Carcharoth 11:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) And now we have: Category:Tolkien_articles_by_quality! Carcharoth 11:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
More tags on the articles than text in the article. Surely someone should have cleaned this up by now? Dwarf_runes. Carcharoth 14:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This was an old plan, but I wanted to start it again now that we have a sufficient amount of members (though I realize that most of our members tend to be gnomish in nature, which is perfectly fine, of course ^^).
If you see here, three Tolkien related articles participants here have majorly contributed to are listed there as paragons :). In time, I know we can do this with a majority of Tolkien related articles. So, I wanted to start a collaboration for Tolkien related articles. I want the collaboration to be fortnightly, but considering the current status of activity in our participants I would say it'd be best to have the collaborations monthly. Comments? — Mir l e n 00:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)