# Talk:Quenya

An editor has added a paragraph about the Tengwar script. That is prima facie not relevant to this article which is not about any script but about the Quenya language. The finer details of the IP of Tengwar don't concern readers who have come here to read about the grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and history of the language. I'm minded to remove all or most of the material as irrelevant in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Relevant copyright information pertaining to Tolkien's elvish (Quenya and its script Tengwar) has been cited with reliable sources. This copyright information is necessary for Wikipedia itself to render the Tengwar language legally within the United States copyright system, due to Wikipedia's own copyright policy. Wikipedia itself is not publicly advertised as an authoritative Tolkien source. I have added this copyright information using an encyclopedic tone appropriate for this article and additional information related to the language's technical and hobbyist uses.
Removing or misrepresenting this information in the context of an encyclopedic article suggests copyright infringement. We would prefer to use the talk page for discussions. Jellocube (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

All very fine and dandy, but as I said in the thread above, this article is not about Tengwar so you're barking up the wrong tree.
On legal matters, I suspect you are barking up a different wrong tree as Wikipedia articles normally steer clear of any legal statements for a range of good reasons, not least (I believe) Wikimedia policy, but that's way above my pay grade. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
If you are going to speak on behalf of Wikipedia, please cite Wikipedia's own site policy. The sources used for the information your are trying to have removed are the Unicode Consortium and Tolkien Estate/Middle Earth Enterprises. These are the most direct secondary sources (legal entities) referring to the primary source (Tolkien's writing). Wikipedia prefers secondary sources for this reason:
Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
In short, you appear to be in violation of Wikpedia's policies. Jellocube (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I haven't remotely violated anything, I'm discussing what to do with you, and if that doesn't yield a consensus, I'll seek advice elsewhere. Nor am I trying to remove sources, I'm seeking to understand why you want to talk about subject B (Tengwar) on subject A (Quenya)'s article, and I'm doubting whether legal notices should go in articles at all, as it's simply not our business as an encyclopedia. If we need to remove anything, it won't be sources, it'll be entire sentences (text +source). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what Tengwar is. Jellocube (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Tengwar is a script, Quenya is a language. Any language including English can be written in Tengwar; the script is not the subject of this article, so your additions are off-topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you aware that an article Tengwar exists? —Tamfang (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
By the way, Wikipedia has a general legal disclaimer, so we don't need to put disclaimers into articles, or they'd all be full of such things. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to remove the whole paragraph, but since there is a measure of consensus that copyright statements, especially if as it looks there is some conflict of interest involved, are not appropriate, I've removed the copyright statements only, noting that all Tolkien's works are in copyright and we certainly aren't going to clutter hundreds of articles with such things. Indeed, all of Wikipedia's thousands of articles on living authors and their books would have similar clutter, and we do not put legal warnings or copyright notices into those either, as editors have agreed since the foundation of Wikipedia. As already stated, Wikipedia Wikipedia has a general legal disclaimer, so it is unnecessary and inappropriate, indeed potentially dangerously misleading, to include any further statements in articles that might be taken as any kind of variation from Wikipedia's stated position. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)