Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/5 August 2012/Transcript

[2012-08-05 20:08:17] <KingAragorn> Welcome to Tolkien Gateway's August 2012 meeting! Amroth, Ederchil, Gamling, Hyarion, KingAragorn, Mith, Morgan, and Pallando are all present. Mithrennaith may turn up a bit later.
[2012-08-05 20:08:17] <KingAragorn> http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien_Gateway_talk:Meetings/5_August_2012
[2012-08-05 20:08:17] <KingAragorn> First up is me with: should we can rid of these (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Category:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Motion_Picture_Trilogy_elvish_quotations)?
[2012-08-05 20:08:31] <Ederchil> Do we use them on anything?
[2012-08-05 20:09:00] <KingAragorn> I haven't checked each one, but I don't think we do - I may be wrong
[2012-08-05 20:09:56] <Gamling> Do we have Motion Picture Trilogy quotations for anyone besides Elves?
[2012-08-05 20:10:11] <Amroth> Personally, I don't really mind if we keep them or not.
[2012-08-05 20:10:21] <Ederchil> Dwarves or Rohirrim? I don't think so
[2012-08-05 20:10:28] <KingAragorn> Just checked, we use this one only http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/File:Gandalf_-_Annon_edhellen,_edro_hi_ammen.ogg
[2012-08-05 20:11:18] <KingAragorn> The reason I ask is because we don't use them and I think they infringe copyright
[2012-08-05 20:11:33] <KingAragorn> Even if we fairuse something we should at least use it
[2012-08-05 20:11:38] <Ederchil> That was what I was thinking about them. We can do without them.
[2012-08-05 20:12:15] <Gamling> If it's a question of infringement I vote to drop them.
[2012-08-05 20:12:46] <Ederchil> We have no practical use for them otherwise. Fair use does state they must have a purpose.
[2012-08-05 20:12:52] <Amroth> +1 to Gamling
[2012-08-05 20:12:54] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-08-05 20:13:02] <KingAragorn> We can keep http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/File:Gandalf_-_Annon_edhellen,_edro_hi_ammen.ogg
[2012-08-05 20:13:12] <KingAragorn> And maybe others if we find a use for them
[2012-08-05 20:13:24] <Ederchil> 'But they're not vital in any way.
[2012-08-05 20:14:03] <KingAragorn> Yeah and we can always get them back by restoring them (or by going back to the films)
[2012-08-05 20:14:54] <KingAragorn> I think we can vote. All in favour of deleting the files that we don't use say Aye, all opposed say No.
[2012-08-05 20:14:56] <KingAragorn> Aye
[2012-08-05 20:15:00] <Ederchil> Aye
[2012-08-05 20:15:02] <Gamling> Aye
[2012-08-05 20:15:04] <Morgan> aye
[2012-08-05 20:16:05] <Ederchil> That sounds settled.
[2012-08-05 20:16:30] <KingAragorn> OK good
[2012-08-05 20:16:37] <KingAragorn> Next is me with: How should we name our articles for the extended editions? Should these articles be about the DVD release (i.e. including information on the Appendices discs) or just how the films are extended? The Fellowship of the Ring extended edition, at least, was also released on VHS so is it wrong that our Extended Edition article should be called "The Lord of the Rings: The...
[2012-08-05 20:16:37] <KingAragorn> ...Fellowship of the Ring Special Extended DVD Edition"? This brings up a broader question: should we have seperate articles for different releases of the films (i.e. one for the VHS, one for the DVD, one for the Blu-ray)?
[2012-08-05 20:17:24] <Ederchil> And if so, should we do the same for Bakshi and R/B?
[2012-08-05 20:17:33] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-08-05 20:17:43] <Morgan> It sounds a bit to overdo it to have separate articles for DVD, VHS, and Blu-ray
[2012-08-05 20:18:07] <KingAragorn> I agree
[2012-08-05 20:18:09] <KingAragorn> http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Motion_Picture_Trilogy_%28Blu-ray%29
[2012-08-05 20:18:17] <KingAragorn> ^ I don't like it
[2012-08-05 20:18:52] <Gamling> I do not have the Blu-ray versions - do they contain different scenes or extra material?
[2012-08-05 20:19:05] <KingAragorn> I think they're the same
[2012-08-05 20:19:19] <Ederchil> Wait, we had that article?
[2012-08-05 20:19:28] <KingAragorn> We have that article
[2012-08-05 20:19:30] <Ederchil> Blu-Ray was the same as Theatrical
[2012-08-05 20:19:47] <Amroth> Do we have an article about the theatrical?
[2012-08-05 20:20:00] <Ederchil> The main article, I guess.
[2012-08-05 20:20:05] <KingAragorn> http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Category:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Motion_Picture_Trilogy_DVDs
[2012-08-05 20:20:13] <KingAragorn> ^ That's what we have
[2012-08-05 20:20:43] <KingAragorn> I would favour putting this information into a section on the main film page
[2012-08-05 20:21:00] <Ederchil> Makes sense.
[2012-08-05 20:21:22] <KingAragorn> But I think that we should have a separate article for the extended editions - but these won't be format specific
[2012-08-05 20:21:40] <Morgan> Yep
[2012-08-05 20:21:44] <Amroth> Aye
[2012-08-05 20:21:58] <Ederchil> It's just the question what they're named then?
[2012-08-05 20:22:18] <Ederchil> With a VHS and possible BR release.
[2012-08-05 20:22:19] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-08-05 20:22:58] <KingAragorn> We usually use the official name for these things
[2012-08-05 20:23:04] <KingAragorn> Which makes this difficult
[2012-08-05 20:23:12] <KingAragorn> But maybe we could go with "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition) "
[2012-08-05 20:23:20] <KingAragorn> *?
[2012-08-05 20:23:39] <Amroth> I think that would be the best option
[2012-08-05 20:23:46] <Gamling> Me too.
[2012-08-05 20:23:48] <Morgan> "(extended edition)"
[2012-08-05 20:23:51] <Ederchil> +1
[2012-08-05 20:23:59] <Ederchil> no caps.
[2012-08-05 20:24:13] <Morgan> Yeah, since it's not the official name
[2012-08-05 20:24:25] <Gamling> Agreed
[2012-08-05 20:24:52] <KingAragorn> It's quite often shown in that format (with caps), which is why I chose it (i.e. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Lord-Rings-Fellowship-Extended/dp/B000066DY0). But, as it isn't official, I agree that it should be lower case.
[2012-08-05 20:25:13] <KingAragorn> Good
[2012-08-05 20:25:22] <KingAragorn> I think we're all happy with this?
[2012-08-05 20:25:33] <Gamling> Yes.
[2012-08-05 20:25:35] <Morgan> Yes
[2012-08-05 20:25:36] <Ederchil> yes
[2012-08-05 20:26:24] <KingAragorn> Before we move on... When was FOTR Extended Edition released?
[2012-08-05 20:26:49] <KingAragorn> And, if that was 2002, does that make the film release 2002 - or does it stay as 2001?
[2012-08-05 20:27:39] <KingAragorn> (Just thinking in terms of referencing - all guides say we should put the year of the film's release)
[2012-08-05 20:27:45] <KingAragorn> Any ideas?
[2012-08-05 20:27:57] <Ederchil> 2002? Or even 2003?
[2012-08-05 20:27:58] <Amroth> Aye
[2012-08-05 20:28:18] <Morgan> Aye
[2012-08-05 20:28:21] <Morgan> :)
[2012-08-05 20:28:32] <Gamling> yes
[2012-08-05 20:28:34] <KingAragorn> Well, out article says it was released 12 November 2002
[2012-08-05 20:28:58] <Ederchil> 2002, then.
[2012-08-05 20:29:20] <KingAragorn> Right
[2012-08-05 20:29:21] <Mith> That sounds about right
[2012-08-05 20:29:26] <Mith> I remember receiving it in November 2002
[2012-08-05 20:29:34] <Mith> Waiting by the front door, I was
[2012-08-05 20:29:43] <Gamling> The label on the disk say 2001 New Line Productions, Inc. 2002 New Line Home Entertainment, Inc. for the Fellowship of the Ring.
[2012-08-05 20:30:14] <Ederchil> The movie is (c) 2001, but the DVD 2002.
[2012-08-05 20:30:15] <Morgan> 12 November 2002 according to AMUK:
[2012-08-05 20:30:15] <Morgan> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lord-Rings-Fellowship-Platinum-Extended/dp/B000067DNF/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1344194847&sr=1-3
[2012-08-05 20:30:39] <Mith> I think it was on a Tuesday
[2012-08-05 20:30:40] <KingAragorn> hmm
[2012-08-05 20:31:00] <Ederchil> I didn't get them until all three were released.
[2012-08-05 20:31:00] <KingAragorn> So should we go for 2002 for the extended edition?
[2012-08-05 20:31:14] <Ederchil> 50% off for a Christmas special.
[2012-08-05 20:31:22] <Ederchil> KA: yes.
[2012-08-05 20:31:38] <Gamling> For the 1st movie, yes.
[2012-08-05 20:31:55] <KingAragorn> I think I saw the Two Towers extended edition before the Fellowship extended edition
[2012-08-05 20:32:04] <KingAragorn> OK good
[2012-08-05 20:32:08] <KingAragorn> Let's move on
[2012-08-05 20:32:40] <KingAragorn> Was I wrong to rename Sage's Category:Greco-Romance (to Greco-Roman) names? I thought it was an error, but Morgan suggested that "Romance" could refer to the Romance languages. Even if "Greco-Romance" is correct I'm not sure that it's a term that most people will understand.
[2012-08-05 20:33:10] <Ederchil> Way I understand it, it's Romance or Romanic. Don't care which one we pick.
[2012-08-05 20:33:43] <KingAragorn> FYI: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Category:Greco-Roman_names
[2012-08-05 20:34:30] <KingAragorn> So should it be "Greco-Romantic names"?
[2012-08-05 20:34:39] <Morgan> That's a long category description...
[2012-08-05 20:34:44] <Ederchil> Romanic, not Romantic.
[2012-08-05 20:34:57] <KingAragorn> Woops! Got it
[2012-08-05 20:36:28] <Gamling> I've always heard the term "Greco-Roman", even when used as an adjective.
[2012-08-05 20:37:34] <Ederchil> That's for the deities and architecture, I think
[2012-08-05 20:37:58] <Gamling> Could be. I've mostly seen it in museums.
[2012-08-05 20:38:29] <Ederchil> Is "Greco" used for languages at all?
[2012-08-05 20:39:13] <Morgan> Why not call the category just "Latin" names?
[2012-08-05 20:39:38] <KingAragorn> Latin is one specific language
[2012-08-05 20:39:44] <KingAragorn> Well, you get what I mean
[2012-08-05 20:40:12] <Morgan> Yeah
[2012-08-05 20:40:31] <Ederchil> "Greco-Romance language" gets only four hits on Google.
[2012-08-05 20:40:35] <KingAragorn> I think "Greco" can be used a prefix
[2012-08-05 20:40:52] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-08-05 20:41:03] <Ederchil> Greco-Roman considerably more. Doesn't mean it's correct (people can be stupid), but still...
[2012-08-05 20:41:19] <Morgan> To be honest, I think we should get rid of "Greco-"
[2012-08-05 20:41:28] <Morgan> "Romanic names"
[2012-08-05 20:41:39] <Ederchil> How many of them are Greek?
[2012-08-05 20:41:59] <KingAragorn> If any of them are Greek then there's no reason why we couldn't have a separate category
[2012-08-05 20:43:00] <Morgan> If a name is of "Latin origin", and "in turn derived from ancient Greek.", then it's unnecessary to have "Greco-Romanic"
[2012-08-05 20:43:34] <KingAragorn> Makes sense
[2012-08-05 20:43:41] <Morgan> And, as KA, says,
[2012-08-05 20:43:55] <Morgan> We could have a separate article for "Ancient Greek names", or whatever
[2012-08-05 20:44:00] <Morgan> *category
[2012-08-05 20:44:26] <Morgan> The Latin names may have many different etymologies
[2012-08-05 20:44:36] <KingAragorn> That's another point "Greco" doesn't necessarily imply Ancient Greek
[2012-08-05 20:44:58] <Gamling> I've been looking; so far only the article for Sapphira Brockhouse mentions Greek.
[2012-08-05 20:45:30] <Ederchil> Gerontius Took.
[2012-08-05 20:46:01] <Gamling> Yep
[2012-08-05 20:46:53] <Morgan> I'm thinking: ok, Tolkien may have re-used a Latin name for a character in his legendarium. But do we know he was also taking into account the background it had in Latin itself?
[2012-08-05 20:46:53] <KingAragorn> Shall we agree to diffuse them into two categories, "Romanic names" and "Ancient Greek names"? (We'll get Sage to do it).
[2012-08-05 20:47:06] <Ederchil> Yes.
[2012-08-05 20:47:24] <Gamling> Sure
[2012-08-05 20:48:00] <Amroth> Yes
[2012-08-05 20:48:59] <Morgan> Yes.
[2012-08-05 20:48:59] <KingAragorn> OK good
[2012-08-05 20:49:04] <KingAragorn> Next
[2012-08-05 20:49:16] <KingAragorn> Should we capitalise the names of races? Should there be times when we do capitalise them and when we should not? What system did Tolkien use (was he consistent?)?
[2012-08-05 20:49:25] <Morgan> Mith
[2012-08-05 20:49:43] * Mith is away
[2012-08-05 20:50:02] <Morgan> Didn't Mith write an answer to this on Google Answers?
[2012-08-05 20:50:09] <Ederchil> I thought the practice was "capitalize when referring to the peoples, and not when referring to one or more individuals.
[2012-08-05 20:51:05] <Morgan> KA, when you chatted,you said something about Hammond and Scull noting this?
[2012-08-05 20:51:13] <Morgan> *you and I cahtted
[2012-08-05 20:51:38] <Morgan> Do you know where it can be found?
[2012-08-05 20:53:01] <Morgan> p. xliii
[2012-08-05 20:53:02] <KingAragorn> Just checked, they were refering to things like house and House
[2012-08-05 20:53:07] <Morgan> The Reader's Companion
[2012-08-05 20:53:09] <Morgan> Yeah
[2012-08-05 20:53:36] <KingAragorn> So it's not specific to race
[2012-08-05 20:54:55] * KingAragorn is Googling
[2012-08-05 20:55:49] <Morgan> I think Ederchil is correct here
[2012-08-05 20:55:53] <KingAragorn> http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/message/20213
[2012-08-05 20:56:14] <Morgan> capitals when referring to the race/people
[2012-08-05 20:57:30] <KingAragorn> OK, should we enshrine this in our Manual of Style?
[2012-08-05 20:57:42] <Ederchil> I thought it already was?
[2012-08-05 20:58:25] <KingAragorn> #ok
[2012-08-05 20:58:27] <KingAragorn> *OK
[2012-08-05 20:58:47] <KingAragorn> So no change there
[2012-08-05 20:59:03] <KingAragorn> OK, that seems to be settled
[2012-08-05 20:59:15] <KingAragorn> Has anybody got any other business?
[2012-08-05 20:59:29] <Ederchil> Not that I can think of.
[2012-08-05 20:59:42] <Gamling> Nothing in particular.
[2012-08-05 20:59:54] <Amroth> No
[2012-08-05 21:00:19] <KingAragorn> Just to update you, I've contacted all artists who had e-mail addresses that I could find
[2012-08-05 21:00:20] <KingAragorn> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtrDCrepvFsTdHEzQzZ3ME9TUnVTeHNPU25UUjVRRkE
[2012-08-05 21:01:22] <Amroth> Great
[2012-08-05 21:01:29] <Morgan> Sage raised some interesting questions on a talk page; it's quite complicated, though, maybe we don't have time to reach any consensus this meeting. Latin origin, some of them in turn derived from ancient Greek.
[2012-08-05 21:01:42] <Morgan> Indeed, well done, KA!
[2012-08-05 21:02:01] <Morgan> Oh, Ctr+C didn't work
[2012-08-05 21:02:08] <Morgan> http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_under_the_Mountain
[2012-08-05 21:02:08] <Gamling> Thank you, KA
[2012-08-05 21:02:15] <Morgan> (Skip "Latin origin..." above)
[2012-08-05 21:03:02] <KingAragorn> Yeah this is something we need to settle
[2012-08-05 21:03:10] <KingAragorn> But I think Sage has already made up his mind
[2012-08-05 21:04:25] <Ederchil> It does make sense though.
[2012-08-05 21:04:35] <Morgan> Perhaps it's better to continue that discussion in the forum?
[2012-08-05 21:04:39] <KingAragorn> Yeah, I'm happy with this to be what we do
[2012-08-05 21:06:06] <KingAragorn> There's also the separate issue of the place and kingdom/realm
[2012-08-05 21:06:28] <Ederchil> I don't think Rohan and Godnor should be split up.
[2012-08-05 21:06:42] <KingAragorn> I couldn't agree more
[2012-08-05 21:07:01] <Amroth> +1
[2012-08-05 21:07:11] <Gamling> +1
[2012-08-05 21:07:55] <KingAragorn> But, at the same time, should we merge Rhovanion the region with Rhovanion the realm? I'm not so sure
[2012-08-05 21:08:20] <Ederchil> They're not so fundamentally different.
[2012-08-05 21:08:37] <Ederchil> They being Roh and Gon
[2012-08-05 21:09:05] <Ederchil> Rhovanion was still used for the region after the realm had gone
[2012-08-05 21:09:06] <KingAragorn> True, but there were lots of realms in the region of Rhovanion. It just so happens that one was called Rhovanion.
[2012-08-05 21:09:33] <KingAragorn> Were the boundaries the same?
[2012-08-05 21:10:03] <Gamling> It makes sense to split places from kingdoms when they are not the same - Rhovanion included vast areas not in the Kingdom of Rhovanion (same for Eriador/Arnor). But the area of Gondor was always pretty much the same as the realm.
[2012-08-05 21:10:41] <KingAragorn> Yeah, that's how I see i
[2012-08-05 21:10:46] <KingAragorn> *it
[2012-08-05 21:10:54] <Ederchil> +1
[2012-08-05 21:11:52] <Amroth> +1
[2012-08-05 21:12:50] <KingAragorn> So we're happy with existing arrangements?
[2012-08-05 21:12:55] <Ederchil> Yes.
[2012-08-05 21:12:57] <Gamling> Yes.
[2012-08-05 21:12:59] <KingAragorn> Are there any other examples?
[2012-08-05 21:13:29] <Gamling> Realm of Numenor vs. Island of Numenor.
[2012-08-05 21:13:53] <Ederchil> Pretty much the same history.
[2012-08-05 21:14:15] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-08-05 21:14:21] <Gamling> Yes - this would be the same as for Gondor.
[2012-08-05 21:14:44] <KingAragorn> Although we do have this http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elenna
[2012-08-05 21:14:57] <KingAragorn> But it's etymology
[2012-08-05 21:15:21] <Amroth> NĂºmenor: Island and realm should be one article.
[2012-08-05 21:15:48] <KingAragorn> Aman and Valinor overlap, they will need sorting
[2012-08-05 21:17:16] <KingAragorn> OK, shall we call it a day/night?
[2012-08-05 21:17:33] <Gamling> Sounds good to me.
[2012-08-05 21:17:35] <Ederchil> Sure.
[2012-08-05 21:17:51] <Morgan> Well, the question raised by Sage, as I understood it, isn't so much about how many articles we should have; it rather with the question of where to put information in the hierarchy tree? For example, I experienced this problem when creating the recent article "Dead face" -- how much should I repeat from "Dead Marshes"? How much do I need to repeat in the (so far non-existant) article "Mere of Dead Faces"?
[2012-08-05 21:17:55] <Amroth> Some regions of Aman (Avathar, etc.) weren't part of Valinor, were they?
[2012-08-05 21:18:04] <Morgan> Oh, sorry -- yeah, I need to go soon too!
[2012-08-05 21:18:47] <KingAragorn> Can of worms, Morgan
[2012-08-05 21:19:18] <Morgan> I did apologize!
[2012-08-05 21:19:18] <Morgan> ;)
[2012-08-05 21:19:34] <KingAragorn> Amroth, that's what I meant - but the question is: should we have the history of Valinor in the history of Aman section?
[2012-08-05 21:21:14] <KingAragorn> I can see no one has the energy for this discussion (I don't), shall we keep it to the forum and talk pageS?
[2012-08-05 21:21:23] <Morgan> yep
[2012-08-05 21:21:29] <Gamling> Yes.
[2012-08-05 21:21:40] <Amroth> yes
[2012-08-05 21:21:52] <KingAragorn> OK, meeting adjourned!