Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive10

message: Category:WikiProject Middle-earth subpages
Tolkien articles by quality statistics (worklist) :
Archives
----
*Archive 1 (25 Nov., 2005 – 02 Apr., 2006)
*Archive 2 (05 Apr., 2006 – 15 May, 2006)
*Archive 3 (15 May, 2006 – 30 June, 2006)
*Archive 4 (1 July, 2006 – 17 Aug., 2006)
*Archive 5 (23 Aug., 2006 – 29 Sept., 2006)
*Archive 6 (30 Sept., 2006 – 7 Dec., 2006)
*Archive 7 (8 Dec., 2006 – 21 Feb., 2007)
*Archive 8 (22 Feb., 2007 – 24 April, 2007)
*Archive 9 (25 April, 2007 – 6 July, 2007)
----
If anyone wants to pull out or copy a previous discussion, feel free to to do so. —Mirlen 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

message: ==Roll call: July - September==
Please sign your name below and on the front page. Comments are optional.
# I'll keep an eye on this and see if I can help, add anything etc --Gothaur 09:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Community

message: Please sign your name below and on the front page. Comments are optional.
# I'll keep an eye on this and see if I can help, add anything etc --Gothaur 09:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll call: July - September

message: ===Deletion proposals===
:Move expired proposals below.
None at present.
===Recent deletions===
I was looking through the log here and noticed several recent deletions. What should be done about these, if anything? I think expired prods can be contested, but ones deleted via AfD will be more problematic. These are also a mixed bunch, some are rubbish articles, while some are worth saving, in my opinion. Carcharoth 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I found a mirror version of 'Middle-earth in popular culture', and after looking through it, I'm taking this to deletion review. There needs to be a longer discussion on this. I'll post a link here once I've started the review. Actually, first, I'm discussing with the closing admin and the original AfD voters.  Carcharoth 11:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ME in popular culture should be looked at again. At least, I think that an encyclopedia article could certainly be written about it, without resorting to lists of "when Gandalf was mentioned in XYZ sitcom". Tolkien-based Warcraft III games should be looked at my someone with knowledge of these games; I cannot tell if the article is talking about fan-created stuff or actual notable games. The other articles were rubbish and should stay deleted. --Fang Aili talk 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Salvage Jenny Dolfen (PROD, see below) if you can... She's a published illustrator. Uthanc 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably be careful about having too many people articles. I've got this in a subpage of my user pages, but I've never found the time to see whether it is worth salvaging or not. As for my views on ME in popular culture, see my comments here. I'm waiting for a response there before I go to deletion review. Carcharoth 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored Jenny Dolfen per Uthanc's request--prods should be restored if anyone reasonably objects. We can further discuss the merits of the article if needs be. --Fang Aili talk 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't mind a rewrite area within the project. Let's make sure it doesn't get out of hand though, or people will start yelling at us. :) --Fang Aili talk 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for deletion

message: I was looking through the log here and noticed several recent deletions. What should be done about these, if anything? I think expired prods can be contested, but ones deleted via AfD will be more problematic. These are also a mixed bunch, some are rubbish articles, while some are worth saving, in my opinion. Carcharoth 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I found a mirror version of 'Middle-earth in popular culture', and after looking through it, I'm taking this to deletion review. There needs to be a longer discussion on this. I'll post a link here once I've started the review. Actually, first, I'm discussing with the closing admin and the original AfD voters.  Carcharoth 11:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ME in popular culture should be looked at again. At least, I think that an encyclopedia article could certainly be written about it, without resorting to lists of "when Gandalf was mentioned in XYZ sitcom". Tolkien-based Warcraft III games should be looked at my someone with knowledge of these games; I cannot tell if the article is talking about fan-created stuff or actual notable games. The other articles were rubbish and should stay deleted. --Fang Aili talk 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Salvage Jenny Dolfen (PROD, see below) if you can... She's a published illustrator. Uthanc 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably be careful about having too many people articles. I've got this in a subpage of my user pages, but I've never found the time to see whether it is worth salvaging or not. As for my views on ME in popular culture, see my comments here. I'm waiting for a response there before I go to deletion review. Carcharoth 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored Jenny Dolfen per Uthanc's request--prods should be restored if anyone reasonably objects. We can further discuss the merits of the article if needs be. --Fang Aili talk 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't mind a rewrite area within the project. Let's make sure it doesn't get out of hand though, or people will start yelling at us. :) --Fang Aili talk 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent deletions

message: *This is rare, but following the work by Súrendil, there are some redirects up for deletion (mostly housekeeping) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 18. Carcharoth 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the Middle-earth redirects there and at other RfD discussions were kept. They can now be found, along with others, in :Category:Middle-earth redirects from redundant titles. Carcharoth 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects for deletion

message: *Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 22#Template:PoemOfTheRing. Carcharoth 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both deleted. Carcharoth 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates for deletion

message: 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  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. Carcharoth 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Portal:Middle-earth/Pages should be used in preference to that list, and that list should be moved out of article space (to a subpage of this WikiProject). Carcharoth 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "...the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings" looks awkward and unwieldy to me. Uthanc 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but couldn't think of anything better. Technically List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy should be List of original characters in the The Lord of the Rings film trilogy... One of the reasons I shoved those article off into their own categories was because I thought the main category looked better with just the film trilogy article and its subarticles. Because those articles have such long titles, the category looks horible with all the articles in the main category. Feel free to try something else! :-) Carcharoth 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles newly made/found

message: *Middle-earth warfare by User:Tttom; suggested by me (see Talk:Battle of the Pelennor Fields) Uthanc 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Portal:Middle-earth/Pages should be used in preference to that list, and that list should be moved out of article space (to a subpage of this WikiProject). Carcharoth 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "...the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings" looks awkward and unwieldy to me. Uthanc 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but couldn't think of anything better. Technically List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy should be List of original characters in the The Lord of the Rings film trilogy... One of the reasons I shoved those article off into their own categories was because I thought the main category looked better with just the film trilogy article and its subarticles. Because those articles have such long titles, the category looks horible with all the articles in the main category. Feel free to try something else! :-) Carcharoth 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New stuff

message: I'm currently busy on pages about Edain, already created a couple of new articles, expanded others and planning to add a few more (or expand lists and add redirects). When finished, I'll update List of Middle-earth articles and similar. Súrendil 08:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Portal:Middle-earth/Pages should be used in preference to that list, and that list should be moved out of article space (to a subpage of this WikiProject). Carcharoth 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edain

message: *Literally! Frodo Lives!. Carcharoth 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frodo Lives!

message: *Not an article, but Template:Infobox Me battle was created recently. Carcharoth 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle-earth battle template

message: *List of Middle-earth inns by Súrendil. Looks good. Carcharoth 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle-earth inns

message: *Special effects of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
*Principal photography of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
*Production design of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
*:Category:Middle-earth theatre
*:Category:Middle-earth parodies
*:Category:Legacy of the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings
*:Category:Films in the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings
*:Category:Characters and objects from the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings
*:Category:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (rename of :Category:Lord of the Rings film trilogy
Found three more and created six new categories. Carcharoth 12:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings" looks awkward and unwieldy to me. Uthanc 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but couldn't think of anything better. Technically List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy should be List of original characters in the The Lord of the Rings film trilogy... One of the reasons I shoved those article off into their own categories was because I thought the main category looked better with just the film trilogy article and its subarticles. Because those articles have such long titles, the category looks horible with all the articles in the main category. Feel free to try something else! :-) Carcharoth 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some more

message: *The Lord of the Rings Volume 1 (17 August 2005)
*The Hobbit (Vivendi Game) (8 February 2007)
*Shadows of Isildur (26 March 2007)
The above are some video games and role-playing games that were created recently and, in the first case, not so recently! Carcharoth 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet more

message: *War of the Ring (board game)
*:Category:Middle-earth board games
*The Brothers Hildebrandt
As we now have three articles on board games, I created the category to hold them. The Hildebrandt article also has a strong Tolkien connection now. This should be the last entry under new stuff for this period, but the board game article existed for a year before I noticed it being linked from an article on my watchlist. There may be more articles like this out there. Keep your eyes peeled! Carcharoth 16:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two more

message: Súrendil found and tagged Vera Chapman. Carcharoth 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One more

message: *Previous move discussion archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive10. The big discussion was over Angband, and the closing decision can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive10#Angband. Please restart any unfinished discussions in this section. Carcharoth 10:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, these moves/merges have gone ahead. Carcharoth 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposals 

message: * Talk:Fangorn forest — Fangorn forest → Fangorn moved
* Gorgoroth → Gorgoroth (Middle-earth) and merge to Minor places in Middle-earth ; Gorgoroth (band) → Gorgoroth
* Cirith Gorgor → Cirith Gorgor (Middle-earth) (already merged) ; Cirith Gorgor (band) → Cirith Gorgor : Just the opposite of the case of Angband. M-e articles cannot be much expanded further and are to be merged; so the articles about the groups (Gorgoroth seems to be quite notable) can take over plain namespaces. Súrendil 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, these moves/merges have gone ahead. Carcharoth 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposals

message: :Split off into new section by Carcharoth 09:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the current Beregond article is part of what I see as a huge, pointless accumulation of Tolkien fancruft. There's practically nothing to say about most of the people in Tolkien's fictional lineages; in most cases we have nothing but a name. The only reason many of these articles seem to exist is to provide a target for a succession box, to ensure an unbroken chain. In this case, there's all of one sentence about his accomplishments in office, and in any other context this would obviously not be worth an article. The line of the Chieftains of the Dunedain is much the same. Take Aragorn I -- the only thing to be said about him is that he came after Aravir, before Araglas, and was killed by wolves. The fact that he was raised at Imladris can't even be specifically proven from the source -- it's just something that's true of all the Chieftains, and the only reason to mention it each time is to pad out the articles. IMO, these do not belong as separate articles and should all be merged in cases where there's so little to be said about them. Which is the case for nearly all of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we are all agreed that merging such articles is a good idea, and succession boxes be hanged (they can use redirects to anchor links, anyway). The main trouble with some merges is that some merge targets can end up looking very similar to what Tolkien produced, especially in the case of the Numenorean kings and queens. The other problem is finding the time and motivation to perform merges. I tried doing a few, and it is rather boring work. It is also important to get the links in the edit summaries correct. And then what do you do with the talk pages? Carcharoth 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go. Terribly tedious 6 or 7 step process. Carcharoth 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tell a lie. 10 step process. And I forgot the talk page. Carcharoth 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we even have a horribly underpopulated :Category:Wikiproject Middle-earth to be merged. But unless target articles are decided on, we will all merge to different locations and create a mess! Carcharoth 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You have a fair point, especially about the linguistic aspects), but deleting them might start a slippery slope we don't want to go down. I think carrying on with merging is the best thing for now. Look at articlesn like Arnor, Rangers of the North and in particular at the list at Rangers of the North#Chieftains of the Dúnedain. Click on the links to each king and consider how best to merge the information. I might even make a start tonight. Carcharoth 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More merging discussion

message: :see above Uthanc 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should have our own Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense? Is it against the rules? Uthanc 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but probably best not too. You could keep a list here, but don't overdo it. Carcharoth 11:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax pages 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Recent deletions. Been away for a while, trying to get back into the swing of things round this WikiProject, and I find that Middle-earth in popular culture got deleted! :-( From memory, it was unsourced, but it was the beginnings of an article on the subject, and contrary to what the people at the AfD said, there have been studies on this topic. Carcharoth 09:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mirror copy of the 'Middle-earth in popular culture' article can be seen here. Carcharoth 11:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New deletion stuff

message: Have a look at :Category:Middle-earth redirects! Some great work has been done there by Súrendil, showing how our redirects should be organised, and the advantages of such organisation, showing how redirects to lists and sections can really help organise merged lists and avoid having hundreds of short stubs. This also reduces the amount of material that needs assessing as well, once the "merge era" is finished. Carcharoth 11:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inspired by that, I created and have started to populate :Category:Middle-earth redirects with possibilities. Carcharoth 15:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects reorganised 

message: 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. I'm also going to update the section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth#Accomplishments. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best articles 

message: Please add discussion here. Carcharoth 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There are some articles that I think are good models for how to merge material from stubs and reference it (well, at least in some cases). If you see any articles that you like the look of, please add them below. Carcharoth 22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models for merges 

message: *House of Hador - lots of stubs merged here
*List of Middle-earth weapons (nice layout)
*Horses of Middle-earth (not as good a layout as the others)
*List of Hobbits (different style)
*List of hobbit families (same style as for the hobbit list)
*List of havens of the Eldar (poor list)
*Minor places in Arda (yet another style)
See also :Category:Middle-earth lists. Anyone have any thoughts about the advantages and disadvantages of these different styles? Carcharoth 22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: I noticed Elendor was proposed for deletion. Don't suppose anyone could provide some references for the material within it, or rewrite it such that it might be kept? It seems like a worthwhile topic, given its age. GreenReaper 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result was no consensus, default to keep. Carcharoth 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUCK article up for deletion 

message: Lots of administrative tidying has been done. See :Category:WikiProject Middle-earth and its subcategories for the new structure. The only category that is still a bit untidy is :Category:WikiProject Middle-earth participants, because people put the user template anywhere and everywhere and all the pages end up in that category.
Anyway, for the record, here are some pages that were deleted. I don't think I remembered them all, but here are the ones I did note down (these ones are renames or lists, so no information was lost):
*:Category:The Lord of the Rings Radio 4 adaptation actors
*:Category:The Lord of the Rings Radio 4 adaptation cast members
*:Category:The Lord of the Rings actors
*:Category:The Lord of the Rings cast members
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2005 December 26#Actors by series and its sub-categories
*:Category:The Lord of the Rings film series actors
*:Category:The Lord of the Rings film series cast members
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series
*:Category:Poetry by J. R. R. Tolkien (became :Category:Poetry of J. R. R. Tolkien)
The actor categories became, or returned to being, lists in the various places. See Template:LotR casts navbox. Carcharoth 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More tidying 

message: I've just archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive9 the entire page as of 6 July (this version here). Anything after that won't have been archived yet. I then ruthlessly removed anything before 5 July with this edit, but unfortunately that included several long-standing and unanswered questions. Please do dig through the page history and archive to bring these up again if answers are needed. There are also some rather long discussions up above that need to be closed and archived. I'm hoping to get more active here in the next few weeks, and one of the things is sorting the page structure out and archiving more regularly. Carcharoth 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive notice (6 July 2007) 

message: The move discussions have finished. I've archived them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive10. The next archive should go to the same page, with a date filled in, and then normal archiving can resume. I pity whoever tries to work out the order of discussions from the archives. At some point, old version links for this talk page should be added to the archives, as all the discussion ultimately resides in the edit history of this page. Anyway, the talk page is a bit clearer now, so if you have time, please do one of the following:
:(a) Have a look at the above discussions/notices and add your comments;
:(b) Restart unfinished discussions from the talk page archives (see box at top right of page);
:(c) Start a new discussion below!
Thanks. Carcharoth 10:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I've trawled through the archives and updated our AfD list, but have used the talk page as the front page is an old discussion. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/AfD. More still to be found. Carcharoth 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a big list of 31 past AfDs using the method at User:Carcharoth/Finding AfDs, so there are now lots and lots of past AfD discussions to read through at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/AfD, if you like that sort of thing. Still need to find deletion debates where pages were deleted, as well as looking at categories and suchlike. Carcharoth 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussions 

message: Well, I say another, though the previous one never really took off... I noticed that some people are busy merging and assessing articles, and as you can see from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality statistics, the number of assessed articles (534) is close to overtaking the number of unassessed articles (603). So let's aim to cross the halfway stage soon! Remember to consider merging before you assess something, as assessing is pointless if the article is later merged. Any questions, please ask. Carcharoth 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another assessment/merging drive? 

message: Battle of the Pelennor Fields, of all things, is on AfD! Second Battle of Hogwarts was recently deleted and redirected to Harry Potter's war article, and they've set their sights on Tolkien battles. Apparently, their reasoning is if you delete one fictional battle you'd have to delete all of them. Uthanc 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result was keep. Carcharoth 21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle articles may be up for deletion! 

message: I was just reading Harry Potter influences and analogues. Do we have an equivalent article for Tolkien? Should we have one? It should be quite doable given the sources out there. Carcharoth 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best I can find is Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien and Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings and J. R. R. Tolkien#Writing. Carcharoth 12:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolkien's influences and influence 

message: I find it problematic the way issues like the paternity of Orodreth and Gil-galad are treated as though there is only one answer.  In the case of Orodreth, he was the son of Finarfin for most of the history of the development of the story, and only became son of Angrod very late - and this change was never incorporated into the Silmarillion narrative.  In the case of Gil-galad, Tolkien was never really sure where to put him - he was the son of Finrod for most of the earlier period, and was briefly considered as a son of Fingon before settling as a son of Orodreth.  Again, though, this change was never incorporated into the Silmarillion narrative.  I don't think that the statements of the Silmarillion should be taken as truth, but if they are not to be taken so, so much less should be information from various unassembled notes and linguistic writings of Tolkien's last years.  I think what is needed here is to take this back and realize that there is no "real" history of Orodreth or Gil-galad.  There are various versions of the story that Tolkien wrote about, and we should be clear about them.  In cases like these, I think what we ought to do is  be very clear on sourcing, and to indicate a) what the published Silmarillion says; and b) what Tolkien said about them in different stages of his writing.  In cases where the account of the published Silmarillion does not match with Tolkien's latest conception of the story, we ought to discuss this, but we should be careful not to create our own "canon". john k 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. Previously, the attempt to stick to a "canon" was tried, but I never liked it myself. Just documenting the version history, so to speak, is what we should do. There are various standards page scattered around that need updating. I'll start that now. Carcharoth 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In universe and out of universe; Canon

message: The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Dark Kubrick 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) FAR listing 

message: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images/Disputed images. Carcharoth 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images process 

message: :Copied from . Carcharoth 11:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images by Ted Nasmith tagged replaceable fair use 

message: And the maps keep reappearing. See Commons:Category:Middle-earth. I spotted the latest one in Frodo Baggins, and have now removed it. Carcharoth 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you removing the maps? With the remark they were "derivative". I find that outrageous. Cush 07:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% with Carcharoth's decision. I've seen the Tolkien Estate send cease and desist letters and shut down websites for two reasons: If the site has images by J.R.R. Tolkien or has maps, regardless if they are even derivatives. The Estate owns the rights to the majority of the names of characters and locations in Tolkien's works, and therefore using the names, or even implying it is a "Middle-earth map" infringes on their rights. --Hyarion 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the 'we own this name' cases are usually issues with Tolkien Enterprises (unrelated to the estate)... which has trademarked many of the unique names/characters in the stories. Artwork actually created by Tolkien on the other hand is in almost all cases still held by the estate. As to 'derivative works'... any recasting into a new form of a copyrightable portion of an artistic work is always a derivative of the original. Previous discussions on Commons have held that all verbal descriptions of unique persons, places, things are copyrightable... leading to the deletion of all the maps off Commons. However, there is currently a discussion where it is being claimed that most textual descriptions are NOT copyrightable and thus a map of some region Tolkien never mapped out himself (e.g. Aman) or a drawing of a character from the books which didn't look overly like any of Tolkien's drawings or representations of the character in subsequent paintings, films, et cetera would not be a derivative work... though it might still be a trademark infringement. Anyway, until this week Commons had held that all of these images were not 'free use' and the debate now is only whether that should be changed to most of these images are not 'free use'. There isn't any question that I've seen that all maps of the Middle-earth continent itself are derivative of Christopher Tolkien's original map AND various licensed variations made since then. --CBD 16:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello CBD, sorry to go off on a tangent, but do you where I can find some information on the Enterprises legal cases you're thinking of? I've been attempting to compile a list of Tolkien-related cases here. From what I can tell it looks like the Map-related take downs (specifically the "Tolkien Map Raid of 2004") were all on behalf of the Estate. My legal knowledge is very limited, but I believe Enterprises could not sue anyone for using the word, let's say "Hobbit" on a map, as their trademarks are for specific things, such as using the word Hobbit in relation to tobacco products. While I would imagine the Estate could sue anyone for using any word in Tolkien's works when it attempts to use the fame of his works to their advantage, they've even successfully brought down a domain with "Shire" in it. I think even if we were to only upload maps which were not based on illustrations by CT or JRRT, as long as we imply they are maps of Arda, it's still infringing on their rights. But the guys over at Commons are definitely going to be much more legal savvy than I. If you like I can try contacting the Estate, their responses take a while, but it would be nice if we could get an explicit answer from them. --Hyarion 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, nice page. Afraid I don't have anything quite so organized. I just recall various cases; Tolkien Enterprises vs 'Gandalf the Wizard Clown' (Michael Kaplan), John Cooney (had a computer game with a "hobbit" in it), Iron Crown Enterprises (after I.C.E.'s license had expired Zaentz forced them to take down some of the Middle-earth RolePlaying, aka MERP, materials from their site), www.jrrtolkien.org.uk, shiremail.com (You have this one on the list as the Estate, but I think it was actually Zaentz and New Line that sued), and of course TSR for having 'hobbits' and 'ents' in D&D (though I've heard that was settled with just a 'cease and desist'). The only Tolkien Estate case I can recall offhand which isn't listed was the one over what eventually became Mike Perry's 'Untangling Tolkien' book. On the maps, yeah those would be infringing on the artwork rights held by the estate... in this case >Christopher< Tolkien's artwork. I recall hearing from some old time Tolkien Society folks that there was a fight back in the early 80s where Zaentz DID try to control ANY use of the word 'hobbit' and there was some silliness with a 'hobbite' spelling for a while before it got sorted out... apparently the Tolkien Society and the Estate started asserting their rights and Zaentz backed off a bit. --CBD 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite familiar with the "Tolkien Map Raid of 2004", as it affected two of my websites (tolkienion.com, tolkien-maps.com) and much material I had shared with other websites on Hyarion's Image disputes list (all except isildur.com, and he forgot John Ohara's Tolkien Atlas which is also down now). Iirr the lawyers representing the Estate were pursuing the removal of maps websites because they wanted no competition for The Maps of Tolkien's Middle-Earth (Sibley/Howe). That was three years ago, but I have not heard of any activities from those lawyers since then. Cush 08:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably had more to do with the need to assert copyright than eliminating competition. Basically, if they didn't seek to get unauthorized maps shut down, and thereby demonstrate that they were protecting and maintaining their copyright, they could have a hard time asserting that copyright on the new maps (licensed derivative works) they were releasing. Sort of the 'use it or lose it' clause of copyright law. --CBD 10:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But holding a copyright just to keep anyone from redrawing maps you intellectually owns is pointless (for lawyers) as long as that doesn't work for your financial benefit. If there were enough maps available on the web then no-one would buy the (rather crappy) maps that ere officially published. As I said that was 3 years ago, and those maps now posted on wikipedia post no threat to the Estate's copyrights. Has the Estate ever contacted wikipedia? Cush 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If there were enough maps available on the web then no-one would buy the (rather crappy) maps that ere officially published." - are you suggesting that the maps available on the web somehow improve on the originals? I also heard somewhere that the Estate has actually only been successful in cases settled outside court. Cases that reached court they lost. I thought, for example, that Perry (or his publishers) won their case? Which is not to say that future cases won't succeed, or that I'm just plain wrong. Carcharoth 02:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When Cush said "official" I think he meant books like The Atlas of Middle-earth, Journeys of Frodo, The Maps of Tolkien's Middle-earth, etc. and not the maps by CT/JRRT. All this map talk has made me want to see more maps online as it has been hard to find good collections the last few years. So I got together a few other map collectors and with a lot of help from Cush we uploaded a couple hundred maps here, I'm sure we're missing some but its a start, hopefully we can convince Wikipedia to let us upload some here someday. I've always thought each of the location-related articles should have at least one map image that shows where it was in Arda as I tend to have a difficult time remembering where everything is located. --Hyarion 01:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: On the Perry 'Untangling Tolkien' case: No, Mike (who was his own publisher) lost the initial hearings and was enjoined from publishing or advertising the book. He then settled out of court with the Estate and was allowed to publish the book in modified form. I've always thought the whole thing could have been avoided if not for the staggeringly inept and belligerent way he handled it. Not contacting the Estate about your plans to publish, refusing to provide a sample (when requested) so they could see what you were planning, reaching out to David Day (who has a long history of conflict with the Estate) for help, running to the press to denounce them, filing a complaint seeking to get the lawyer who contacted you disbarred, and inserting yourself into a personal dispute between Christopher Tolkien and his son Simon are not the best ways of responding to a letter stating concerns that your book violates the Estate's copyright. It's a good way to go about getting sued for defamation, but that's about it. I don't see how he could have handled it worse if he'd tried. I told him so at the time, but he wasn't exactly listening. --CBD 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And now what? As long as the Estate does not ask Wikipedia to remove any material there is no need to do so in advance. Cush 20:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes there is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the Tolkien Estate actually holding copyrights to? Cush 13:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely anything that was creative and came from Tolkien's mind. The copyright expired 1 January 2045. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the ones drawn by Christopher Tolkien might be even longer than that. Carcharoth 00:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's certainly longer than that, particularly as he adds new material that didn't appear in the older ones, or makes corrections. It's also worth remembering that he drew some of the original maps in the first place. The larger scale map usually included in RotK was his IIRC, and the clock doesn't start ticking down on the copyright for that until he dies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, if Christopher Tolkien was not explicitly credited when the RotK map was published (though maybe he was), does that affect anything? If CJRT was not mentioned, then it would be sort of like a work-for-hire that was published under the copyright claimed by his father, wouldn't it? Carcharoth 02:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so familiar with UK copyright law, but I believe that since he was not his father's employee it would become work-made-for-hire only if there was an explicit agreement saying so.  Otherwise it would remain CJRTs. Although since he based it on sketch-maps made by JRRT, it's a derivative work and he only owns the creative material he contributed. Not that it makes a great deal of difference, practically speaking. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: The assessment stats have been updated by the bot. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality statistics. We have reached and passed the Caradhras-like peak of unassessed articles! There are now less unassessed articles than assessed ones. 575 have been assessed, and 566 remain to be assessed. As I said last time, remember to consider merging before you assess something, as assessing is pointless if the article is later merged. Rather out-of-date (though mostly OK) assessment criteria are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment. Merging instructions are here, though that summary fails to mention that talk page discussion should be archived at the new location (though it can also be left at the old talk page), but the important thing is to remove the  from the talk page of the redirect left after the merge, which will removed it from the list of pages to be assessed. A very incomplete listing of pages for merging is at :Category:Wikiproject Middle-earth to be merged. If you are unsure about a merger, or where to merge to, discuss here and leave a note on the talk page. The template  can also be used to tag a page for merging. Any questions, please ask. Carcharoth 11:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment update 

message: Please look at WP:AfD, and the contributions list  here. Most of the articles nominated should be merged, but we haven't got round to doing it yet. I am marshalling a plan and links to post at each AfD. Help removing the PRODs would be appreciated. Carcharoth 10:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. There are only two AfDs at the moment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Dragon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië. Lots of PRODs, some of which have been removed. I will put lots of the PRODs into :Category:Wikiproject Middle-earth to be merged, and will explain our plans for merging at the AfDs. Carcharoth 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfDs have been withdrawn by the nominator, but we should still consider merging them a high priority. --Hyarion 17:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the AfD and PROD nominated articles are now in :Category:Wikiproject Middle-earth to be merged. Now 127 articles. I will try and work on them later this weekend. Carcharoth 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass nominations at AfD 

message: Plug:
	
	
	
	
	
All from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Books. The "Balrog" is just a fire. :-D We could use "blond/not blond Legolas" boxes. ;-) Uthanc 14:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was checking these out just the other day, I think the wider selection we have the better, "This user believes the Entwives will [never] be found" is another one we should have. Another is having "Lore level" boxes that work much like the Language level infoboxes, but describe how well you are familiar with Tolkien's works on a 1-4 level scale. How about "This user's favorite Tolkien illustrator is $1". I'll try and think of some more. --Hyarion 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me if I don't participate in this discussion other than to say I have a very low opinion of userboxes... :-) Carcharoth 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelty userboxes

message: I have asked a series of questions at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#literature_-_notability_-_serious_question (re ask) concerning derivative works, and the lack of cited references in this project. So please feel free to respond. My main concerns are the numbers of totally uncited articles, and the way in which the project is derivative of Tolkien's work itself.87.102.21.232 09:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ref desk questions

message: There may be a problem with copyright violation on the "the hobbit" page - I've mentioned the problem on the talk page - see there for further details.87.102.81.184 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Hobbit]]

message: See Middle-earth#Correspondence_with_the_geography_of_Earth and Talk:Middle-earth#A_real_world_map - I'm only suggesting this as an interesting footnote, note as the basis of any addition to the text, or as representing any major insight etc. Take a look anyway if you are interested in geographic parallels between middle earth and europe. Enjoy.87.102.5.137 10:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. One thing. Your IP keeps changing, so it is difficult to know who we are talking to. You might want to consider registering an account. See WP:ACCOUNT for the advantages of doing this. Carcharoth 11:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know - happens when I switch on/off, Having a bit of trouble finding a username that hasn't already been taken - will try to get round to it...87.102.5.137 11:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map (europe/middle earth)

message: Further to a discussion above (and others) I've started asking about getting the  template expanded to inlcude various (optional) sub-fields eg chapter etc.
The headings I've asked for are
:<chaptername> 
:<chapternumber> 
:<subbookname>  This refers to 'books' contained in a bound edition eg 'Quenta silmarilion' in Silmarilion,
:<subbookchapter> 
:<publisher> 
:<edition> 
:<imprint>
:<volume> ie Vol 1 in LOTR is the fellowship of the rings
If I've missed any obvious ones etc please add to the list or mention. It's important that the new fields are optional - so that any references that use the current format will not become unuseable.
I've started my quest here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Templates and hope to follow it to a conclusion..87.102.5.137 11:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A better place to ask would be the template talk page. Try Template talk:ME-ref. The creator, designer and maintainer of that template, User:CBDunkerson is fairly active, and should get back to you on this soon. I agree, chapter/section names are a good idea. Carcharoth 11:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll respond to your similar posting at Template talk:ME-ref. --CBD 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References (again)

message: See discussion two above about The Atlas of Middle-earth, I'm adding this to the list of tertiary sources not to be referenced (if possible) in  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Standards#References just to make it clear.
I realise that both The Complete Guide to Middle-earth and The Atlas of Middle-earth are good resources, and most likely totally error free, but a primary source is always prefereable, and in most cases more accessable to more people.
Please comment below if there is a problem.83.100.254.70 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While both are very good overall there are known errors and unproven assumptions in each. Fonstadt in particular had to perform some guesswork on various mapping issues. Thus, primary sources are always better for information found therein. However, we do also need to cite secondary and tertiary sources... for conclusions they draw based on primary sources. --CBD 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per CBD. Speaking of sources, I was wondering if we could add Vinyar Tengwar on to the entries of :Template:ME-ref... Some issues of the journal contains unpublished material written by JRRT, so I think it'd be considered primary material in a secondary/tertiary source. —Mirlen 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this to the list, though since it is a journal with numerous issues and authors rather than a book with one or two fixed authors like the rest of the entries on the list I had to add some additional parameters to specify the journal and article. Information on these parameters is listed on the template page... basically I just copied the standard parameter names to be passed to Template:Cite journal. --CBD 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  But I didn't get all the parameters to show up when I filled out the form to test it out: . —Mirlen 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. I forgot to pass the new parameters on to the format template. Should work now:  --CBD 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: tertiary sources

message: Can I suggest a merge - "battle of pelennor fields" into "pelennor fields"87.102.17.14 10:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Battle of Pelennor Fields stands fine by itself, however Pelennor Fields does need some expanding. I think there is quite a bit of information out there that pertains to the location and not the battle which can be added to the Pelennor Fields article. Something like this is most likely best brought up on the article's talk pages. --Hyarion 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: Just noticed Template:TolkienGateway and not sure whether it is useful. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I just noticed that as well, that's a nice surprise :). I had actually been thinking of making one for at least EoA and maybe TG. While I do think the template may be a good idea, the amount of articles using it seems to be rather overwhelming and in some of the circumstances the article on TG is not much better than Wikipedia's article, so we should at least scale back on the usage. It also may be a bit overboard to use the infobox for the link, a regular external link template might be sufficient, if a template is even necessary. --Hyarion 19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the template is really needed, but there is need to be, I think an external link template would be best.  Those kind of templates are only made for Wikipedia's sister sites, isn't it? —Mirlen 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Tolkien Gateway should be treated like other external sites, not like a sister project. Having said that, it is, in my opinion, one of the best Tolkien wikis out there. EoA and Thain's Book are non wikis, as far as I know, though corrections can be submitted to EoA (Encyclopedia of Arda). If  we were to properly co-ordinate efforts with any other wiki, I think Tolkien Gateway would be a good one. Such co-ordination would probably involve drawing a bar of notability below which people are directed to the Tolkien Gateway. The Tolkien Gateway articles on topics that are notable enough for Wikipedia entries can take a different style and approach to the way such topics should be treated on Wikipedia. I've just been going through :Category:Middle-earth games, and I'm not sure how many of those have entries on Tolkien Gateway. I have been reading TG's entry for , and it is impressive, but in a style totally different from Wikipedia.  Carcharoth 11:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:TolkienGateway]] 

message: This debate has probably taken place before but are the articles like Amroth (Middle-earth) prosperous? The character appears only on some pages of the book and everything that can be told about him is told in a couple of sentences. I propose merging of basically all articles about elves into List of Elves in Tolkien's mythology. No need for separate articles, really. --Tone 14:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't suggest merging all of the Elves into a single article, as some of them such as Legolas, Galadriel, etc. definitely deserve their own article. While I have nothing against dedicating an entire article to Amroth as I've always thought lists make it slightly more congested and difficult to read, I suppose some of the minor Elves could be merged into List of Middle-earth Elves as this seems to be the standard for rivers, weapons, orcs, etc. If you look at the List of Middle-earth Elves however, the bulk of the entries seem lengthy enough to deserve their own article. Maybe we should come up with a minimum length for articles, if we can't write more than that limit, then we can merge it with the list. --Hyarion 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, those elves that appear more often like Legolas and Galadriel surely deserve their own articles. But most of the articles are just the brief summear of what the book says and are therefore excessive to the book synopsis. See Denethor (First Age), Indis or Daeron. For those that have a family tree, one is enough for all, more or less. Some of the items on the list are even not Elves, see Gondolin. And I don't agree that a list, if well written, are more difficult to read, the very idea of making a list is that it cuts what is not needed for an encyc. --Tone 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps if a list is focused though, and organised. Alphabetical listings should really be done in categories by categorising redirects. A list of all minor elves would be too unfocused. Possibly three or four lists are needed. Carcharoth 10:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Carcharoth; list intended for mergers should ideally be readable as a common article. This is indeed quite a diffucult question, encompassing a lot of Middle-earth topics, and I intended to raise it myself when the present page is archived next time... Súrendil 14:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if you look at the talk page I said we would merge those who need merging someday. Uthanc 13:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elves 

message: Hi. Not my normal haunt, but this seems like the best place to ask a question. I was peer reviewing Architecture of Birmingham yesterday and found this in the article: "In 1758, John Perrott built the 29m metre high Perrott's Folly in Ladywood. The tower became the inspiration for one of the towers in J. R. R. Tolkien's novel, The Lord of the Rings. It is believed the tower at Edgbaston Waterworks was the inspiration for the other tower." The reference for this is is here. A similar claim is made in the articles for the Folly and the Waterworks. Another reference is given here.
Now, as it stands, this looks a bit fishy to me. The actual references refer to the towers inspiring 'The Two Towers' itself. This seems to rely on the idea the 'The Two Towers' was conceived and written as a book about Two Towers. To the best of my knowledge, Tolkien wrote LoTR as a single novel, structured into 6 books. The division into three volumes came about when the publishers, nervous about such a novel novel (apologies for the pun) and also anxious about costs, decided to publish in three separate volumes, two books to each volume. It seems unlikely that the two books which make up TTT were deliberately conceived to be about 'two towers' - and they were certainly not named such when written.
JRR Tolkien's Letters makes it pretty clear that Tolkien (as usual!) went through several iterations of names for the three volumes, well after they were written. He eventually settled on 'The Two Towers' for the second one, but remained unclear as to which two towers were meant. He claimed several times that they were Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol, although other indications are that Minas Morgul was the second tower. (For a start, the Tower of Cirith Ungol isn't in 'The Two Towers', it appears at the start of 'The Return of the King'.) He also recognised the liklihood that readers would see them as Barad Dur and Minas Tirith. This degree of uncertainty also makes it seem extremely unlikely that he was inspired by two real world towers to either write a book called 'The Two Towers' or call a book already written by that name.
I've skimmed Letters and found no reference to Perrot's Folly or the Waterworks. I've also looked at the indices of Tom Shippey's two books, the biography and 'Tolkien and the Great War' and found nothing, other than that for Tolkien towers were a frequently used symbol. I can hardly claim to have gone through all the sources in detail, though. Has anyone here ever seen a good solid source that suggests that Tolkien really was inspired in some way by these two towers, or is it, as I suspect, wishful thinking on the part of Birmingham city council, hoping to feed the currently profitable Tolkien industry? Grateful for any light that can be shed. Cheers. 4u1e 10:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely wasn't an inspiration for the book title. The issue of which towers were meant by that title is complex, but nothing to do with any real towers in Birmingham. The Birmingham connection is usually best stated as a vague "he grew up there and was familiar with the towers and they may have inspired him but there is no definite connection despite the links made by the Birmingham tourist industry and some fans and critics". There should be more in "The Roots of Tolkien's Middle-earth ". I'll try and look that up later. Carcharoth 12:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I've tidied up the two articles you mentioned, making the link more for towers in general in his writings, rather than the specific book and title. Carcharoth 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uthanc has removed the towers ref from Architecture of Birmingham and replaced it with the much more solid Sarehole Mill. Cheers. 4u1e 09:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarehole Mill was already there, just mentioned Ted Sandyman. Uthanc 13:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the Tolkien link to the Mill mentioned? No worries either way. 4u1e 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perrot's folly and all that 

message: From my talkpage:
're "ME-fact"
I can't see any benefits of changing  to , all it seems to do is hide the fact the article has unsourced statements on it from the rest of Wikipedia. It could be my ignorance, but I know if no other wiki-projects which do this. It seems incredibly insular and ultimately self-defeating, surely the more editors out there who might look for sources, the better chance of finding them? --Davémon 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it helps editors interested in the material to find articles... but you have a point. Uthanc 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Carcharoth pretty much says it all. —Mirlen 04:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Special project templates