Forums:Quenya declension template appearance

From Tolkien Gateway
Revision as of 01:26, 15 February 2010 by Gilgamesh (talk | contribs)
Tolkien Gateway > Council > Quenya declension template appearance


I've done a lot of technical work over the past few days, and now the state of the Quenya declension templates seems to have mostly stabilized. But now that I have the templates working and in place in many articles, I realized... They need more style, more elegance. They need to fit in more with the feel of the other infobox-like templates on this site. So, while I handle technical issues, does anyone feel up to helping me stylize the presentation tables? The relevant templates are Template:qya-decl-full (nouns inflected by multiple numbers), Template:qya-decl-sg (nouns inflected only in singular: tall version) and Template:qya-decl-sg2 (nouns inflected only in singular: space-saving version). They are mostly the same, not considering their different layout schemes. I could also potentially reduce some of the repetitive table cell code with templates themselves, but I'm concerned about style at the moment.

Meanwhile, I've also been considering other grammatical infobox templates. Maybe Sindarin nouns, maybe Quenya verbs, who knows? I probably won't need to do a whole template for Quenya adjectives though—they inflect so simply as it is (just singular and plural). - Gilgamesh 10:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations for your effort and work. I would be skeptical about such templates because of the lack of grammar. Since Tolkien never wrote any definite rules for the verbs, making such tables and presenting forms of verbs never inflected by him, would be fanon. Better leave this job to linguistic pages like Ardalambion who attempt to reconstruct the languages. An encyclopedia shouldn't take this role so boldly.
Personally, when I write dictionary entries and the "other forms" (see for example Ea_(verb)#Other_forms), the forms are those presented in Tolkien's writings, and aren't presented as an inflection/declension guide. Sage 11:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I asterisked the speculative forms, just like Ardalambion. Besides, I believe linguistics and linguistic issues have every place on this wiki, whether or not they have solid references. With the advent of various Neo-Quenya texts, the language has become more of a living thing than mere dry attestation. There's even a Quenya Wikipedia Incubator now. It has become virtually impossible for hard Tolkien canon to dictate all the notable manifestations of such popular languages. - Gilgamesh 12:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Besides, Tolkien was all about linguistics. What better for this wiki than to serve some modest functions of a grammar and lexicon as well, in addition to its role as an encyclopedia? There is just too much curiosity and potential to ignore. Ardalambion doesn't have a complete monopoly on documentation and grammarian thought. - Gilgamesh 12:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, on the issue of fanon, I think it's perfectly alright to cover non-canon and fanon as long as it's notable and marked as non-canon. Template:Ardalambion link is extremely notable. Besides, there's a fair-sized category of Non-canon maps, and some of them are very well-publicized. - Gilgamesh 12:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, thank you for bringing up canon issues. I've added a small-print canon notice to the templates. "Asterisked forms are speculative. Chart may not be canonical." - Gilgamesh 13:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To my experience Elvish are not more living than they were during the movies hype. Fan fiction has also been a thriving community but that doesn't give it legitimacy to be included in a wiki.
And that's why we have been working on extensive articles about the Tengwar and etymologies. But that's not the same with "teaching" the readers or making suggestions according to our or someone's theories. I disagree with this encyclopedia being used as a guide by some fan who wants to "learn Elvish" or make compositions, and mistakes our suggestions as valid and definite rules, because they aren't.
It took me some time after considering Ardalambion a gospel to realize that "possible", "logical" and "widely accepted" do not equal "truth".
As for the maps, the legendarium does not have a canon visualization, except the Hobbit illustrations perhaps. All Tolkien art is by definition fanart. That's why we can have two differing images of Gandalf in the same article. Sage 13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I really disagree that the Ardalambion-like linguistic detail has no place here. I mean, I'm actually not really a big Tolkien fan, but I've always been drawn to the linguistic aspects. Linguistics is the primary reason I became interested in this wiki. I would find it absurd to only include detail that is etched in stone by a commercially published source, when there is just so much study out there. Besides, I've actually asked for peer review before in the forums, but there was no one around at the time who specialized in this kind of thing. The basic consensus was for me to use my best judgment. I'm not extremely worried about air-tight edits—a wiki, given the manpower, is constantly evolving in its peer-review process. It's not my problem if the actual active pool of editors is so light. I actually moved here from Tolkien Wiki, after I came to realize how badly deserted it was. I'm a compulsive editor, documentor and linker. And I have a legitimate interest in this wiki. And if I had that interest, anyone can. I'd edit at Ardalambion if it were a wiki. - Gilgamesh 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sage on this, and I have problems with the templates on a number of levels:
  1. It isn't our place to state grammar in a very matter-of-fact manner. The very fact we say "Chart may not be 100% canonical." surely sheds doubt not only on the entirety of the chart, anyway, but on the entire article.
  2. "Asterisked forms are speculative." is our speculation. Our job is inform readers of facts, helping people to find the information that they are after, not teaching the public others' speculation which we are passing off as our own. This takes me to my next problem...
  3. There are no references to any of these.
  4. They're ugly and vulgar with header-text larger than the page-title (a cardinal sin in my eyes) and colours which often clash. This isn't really hard to solve but I just don't find them pleasant to look at, at the moment.
  5. They're very... "clutterful" especially on disambiguation pages in which they really dominate the page and distract from it.
We can have articles which talk about Sindarin and Quenya grammars and other people's speculations (with references), but to state them as fact in so many articles and then in the small print say "this might not be true" is dodgy ground for me. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The source is Template:Ardalambion link. The asterisking and the non-canon noticed were suggested to me after the fact, and I did my best to follow Ardalambion's recommendations of what was speculative and what was certain. Besides, the charts make the articles much more beautiful, and I love the colors. - Gilgamesh 16:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the canon notice includes a source. - Gilgamesh 16:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you mentioned the colors clashing. Do you mean within the chart? Or between the chart and the Gateway To Ithilien wiki skin used in the background of every page? The background appearance of the wiki is a variable, and can be changed by any registered user through skin-changing and through their own custom style sheets. As for the charts themselves, I've tried to tweak their colors so that - regardless of hue/saturation - the border has a YUV luma of 25%, the top cell has a luma of 50%, the header cells have a luma of 75%, and the transcription cells are white (luma of 100%). The text in all chart cells is black. This applies equally to Category:Quenya declension templates and Category:Sindarin noun templates, with Quenya using blue and Sindarin using silver-grey. - Gilgamesh 17:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've shrunken the font size of the table title to 150% of the current font size, rather than 200% as it was before. It should not usually be larger than the page title now. - Gilgamesh 17:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Something occurred to me. Maybe it's not so much the colors clash, as it is the luma that does. If I use a gentler difference in luma between the cells, they might be easier to read. Maybe if I shrank the overall font sizes too, to conserve even more space... I'll experiment. - Gilgamesh 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've shrunken the text size and re-adjusted the luma to contrast more gently. - Gilgamesh 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, the linguistics aspects of Tolkien's works are my absolute favorite part about it. Before I got here, there were already many dictionary-style entries. Since I've worked a lot at Wiktionary in the past, declension templates and IPA seemed like the most natural step for any linguistics-lover. Of course I was concerned about canonicity, which is why I asked for advice, which led to the asterisking and the canon notice. And with your comment about lacking sources, I added the Ardalambion link which has the extensive grammatical articles concerning inflection, lexicon, stem forms, etc. - Gilgamesh 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the notes section of each table, and instead embed the notes as a tagged reference which should appear somewhere in the references of each article it appears on. Since the tagged reference is named, it should appear only once. - Gilgamesh 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should say, replacing the canon notice with a tagged reference helped a great deal—now the notice's text can be even longer and more detailed without concern for its effects on chart layout. - Gilgamesh 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, though, this is - even though Helge is clearly one of the leading scholars - still one person's speculation. To put this level of speculation, stated as fact (and it does appear as fact to state it so prominently in those tables) is simply against the principles on which this wiki is founded.
Again, the point remains, here, that having such a massive disclaimer to those tables indicates that they can't really be fully trusted. They are referencing someone else's guess-work which I am uncomfortable with (and I don't think I'm the only one).
With regards to the lay-out and colours, I just find them pretty cumbersome. The text is still too large for my liking, and on many articles these tables are now the "main event" - indeed, a disproportionate focus on linguistics which very few people will use or want on some articles which are very short indeed (indeed, how many people will actually make use of these tables in reality?). If there's a list of priorities of "things to be done" on these articles, expanding character information, histories, infoboxes all trump the linguistics, I think. I actually don't use the Ithilien skin, I use the older Cavendish one, and they still look ugly (and I mean between the chart and the rest of the article).
Do you see my point about including them on disambiguation pages?
I don't think we're going to agree, here: you are clearly passionate about including as much linguistic information as possible whereas I feel we should be a bit more linguistic-lite within specific articles as I feel they're a speculative distraction. Perhaps someone else would like to mediate?
(P.S. Was it really necessary to have nine replies over eleven edits?) --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You're correct in that I'm linguistically passionate. It's actually the primary reason I got into editing at Tolkien wikis. If Tolkien doesn't have linguistics and dictionary-like lexicons, then Tolkien is simply not worth having. Besides, Helge Kåre Fauskanger has really made a highly-notable place for himself. When he talks, people listen. I listen. The wiki ought to hear what he has to say too, if there are people interested. I'm interested. His research is notable enough for lots of people to be interested. It may not be formal canon, or complete non-canon, or diffuse fanon. It's something as important—highly respected scientific research on the canons. Some Tolkien readers like myself cannot subsist on J.R.R. and Christopher alone. Or even on Peter or Vivendi. We can read The Lord of the Rings or the Quest of the Silmaril or any other engaging story until the cows come home. Readers like me most crave the highly-creative aspect of Tolkien studies that dances heavily on our neurons—the richly-grammatical linguistics. And, as I said in the beginning of this comment, if the linguistics aren't here, then Tolkien isn't worth having, because Tolkien is patently incomplete to me without it. So you were right—we're never going to agree on this. We can both be as passionate as Fëanor's famous speech and we may still differ entirely. And thus is the diversity of Tolkien readership and the notable details that make Tolkien's works interesting—and more importantly for us, notable and documentable. - Gilgamesh 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You've completely glossed over my point here. Yes listen to Helge et al., but is it our place to repeat it? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think so, yes. I know that was more of a rhetorical question on your part, but I really, really think we ought to. In fact, it's the primary reason I was interested enough to register. Linguistics documentation is the reason I'm here at this wiki in the first place. To me, Tolkien is first and foremost linguistics. Story, settings, etc. come second. I love Neo-Quenya. I love Neo-Sindarin. I love all that stuff. And I don't just want a Tolkien wikipedia, I want a Tolkien wiktionary too. I eat, sleep and breathe grammar. - Gilgamesh 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You have now re-iterated this point numerous times and it holds no more weight with me now than than the first time you made it. I know - and am now tired of hearing - that you love linguistics, that was the only reason you joined this place etc. etc. etc. This isn't an argument; this a defence of your personal actions. The fact you're even talking about neo-Quenya and neo-Sindarin puts you on dodgy ground; if I started talking about "neo-TLOTR" I would be laughed off these boards by being told that was fan-fiction and has no place here. The same rule applies to languages, surely? If you can't stage an adequate defence of your position (and no one appears to be jumping to your defence on this), then I propose these templates be removed or significantly scaled-back. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No one? It's only you and me here. No one else has contributed to this forum entry. Besides, what exactly do you want to hear? My reasons have been about appeal factor and an area of reader interest. These things are notable to scholars and fanbase alike. That makes them documentable. I simply don't want just a wiki that documents nothing but hard canon without even a mention of other interests. You document them anyway—you just make sure they're very clearly labeled as either semi-canon, non-canon or fanon. I label these as semi-canon, in that they are based on canonical data with solid linguistic study and principle—something that may not be immediately obvious to a typical reader, but can be quite obvious to a well-studied linguist—semi-canon instead of full canon only by virtue of logically applying the rules as they have been spelled out by Tolkien for us to apply logically. And no, this is not fanfiction, because fanfiction is wildly creative and invented, and these templates are based on established rules that I never invented. But if you're getting to the topic of fanfiction, this site is already full of fanart (most of the art and maps, including those that appear at the tops of articles), various fanfictions (I saw some uncompleted fan-made screenplays here and there), and an address of fan interest. The documentation of linguistic data is not about writing fanfiction, but of documenting and presenting inflections and linguistic principles in a meaningful (and beautiful) way, making it more akin to fanart. The topic of Tolkien, as a wiki, cannot be the topic of Tolkien alone in a vacuum, but also of how it's received and studied by extended Tolkienologists. I mentioned that I love Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin, but these are legitimate Tolkien-related interests, and even those as separate articles would be worth documenting, and I mentioned them to illustrate part my background interests that eventually led to me editing linguistics. However, I didn't say that these templates themselves were actual Neo-Quenya or actual Neo-Sindarin—I use much stricter standards for these, and I do not make huge logic leaps. I keep any actual Neo-Quenya or Neo-Sindarin limited to user page projects only. Oppose removal; oppose scale-back; expand wiktionary-nature of the wiki as per Forum:Wiktionary-style entries and grammatical inflections. I got a few positive and constructive comments by a handful of other users anyway. This controversy here seems driven only by you, and is too small to put to a vote, otherwise someone else would have at least bothered to comment in this forum entry either way. - Gilgamesh 01:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)