| Revision as of 09:40, 8 November 2022 editLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,671,071 editsm Transcluding GA reviewTags: Manual revert Reverted← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:54, 30 July 2024 edit undoChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,852 edits →Image Request: reply |
| (17 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{GA nominee|13:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Language and literature|status=onreview|note=}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
|action1date=15 January 2023 |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=/GA1 |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Fictional characters|class=B}}}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=1133835657 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|topic=langlit |
|
|
|dykdate=31 January 2023|dykentry=... that Tolkien's ''']''' has been seen as analogous to ]?|dyknom=Template:Did you know nominations/Morgoth}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA| |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Fictional characters}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{archives |auto=short |index=/Archive index |collapsible=yes |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}} |
|
{{archives |auto=short |index=/Archive index |collapsible=yes |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Ainu" vs "Ainur" == |
|
== Silmarillion == |
|
|
|
|
An editor is seeking to use the rare term "Ainu" for a member of the "Ainur". The plural term is moderately well-understood by Tolkien readers; "Ainu" is a rarely-used singular, and however correct it might be, it just makes the article harder to read, which is undesirable. I suggest we leave it as it is, which is correct in British English, and more readable to boot. There certainly should not be repeated edit-warring attempts to insert "Ainu" against consensus. ] (]) 14:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hello from that "an editor", |
|
|
:sure both terms are accurate if one get fit them in. And yes, the singular is not quite as well-known as the plural. So I take your point of better readability (a point that should apply in other articles as well) - a reasoning not clear from the edit history - but I wonder why you want to eliminate the penultimate occurences of that word but let the final one stand. Could you explain that? If that final one stands, then the reasoning "we shouldn't be using that obscure form" falls flat. |
|
|
:NB: "repeated edit-warring attempts" and "against consensus" is way overstating the matter. I made one change once - that's not edit warring. Nor can you claim consensus for either version. ] ] 05:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Thank you for discussing. On the technical matter, I'm really not sure that increasing the number of uses of a term like "Ainu" is moving the article in the right direction. We are writing for the general reader. In the "Ainulindale" section, I suppose the average person will put two and two together and connect "Ainu", "Ainur", and "Ainulindale". However, such a philological approach does not come easily to many people, and relying on that sort of Tolkienesque thinking is open to the charge of being overly technical. Of the three terms, "Ainu" is certainly the most obscure; we can avoid it (most of the time, at least) by writing "one of the Ainur", or to use a better-known term, and one that is actually more specific in Morgoth's case, "one of the Valar" – this has the advantage that it is actually used in ''The Lord of the Rings'', which has a readership around 100 times as large as ''The Silmarillion''. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The guiding principle must be readability and comprehensibility. That does not forbid us from using rare terms like "Ainu", but it does enjoin us to be careful with such things; and I'd say that in any article except ] itself, we should certainly not use it in the lead section, or without a wikilink or explanatory gloss. Whether the term should be used in the body at all is debatable; reading the article through again now, I don't find its repeated use too obtrusive; equally, I don't see a need to use it more often. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I'm sorry to mention this, but since you've raised the matter, I feel obliged to say that even one repeated re-insertion without discussion is tending towards edit-warring, as the policy in fact makes clear; there actually wasn't even an edit comment, and I'd remind you that the onus is on the person who wants to make a change to start the talk page discussion, i.e. the default is the ''status quo ante'' and discussion is required. So, I'm glad you are now joining the discussion. There is not a great distance between our positions here - the term is legitimate but obscure, and I think we can find a way to use it sparingly. ] (]) 09:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No, we aren't far apart. I agree that "Ainu" is the most obscure of the three terms and I actually do not mind much whether it appears one time more or less. That readability and comprehensibility are guiding principles - next to accuracy, of course - has always been my view. |
|
|
:::Since, as you say, readers can put two and two together, I also do not think that the occurence of the term "Ainu" in the spot of our contention, really hurts readability. |
|
|
:::From my perspective I was not "increasing the number of uses" of the term but rather reverted a reduction of the term without proper justification. |
|
|
:::I'm sorry too that you felt you need to mention this but this usage of the term "edit-war" serves nothing but to poison the working atmosphere (which, in the long run, would result in conditions like in the German Misplaced Pages, where any change to articles is instantly reverted with the stereotypical reasoning of "not an improvement" and further attempts at changes are declared "vandalism"). Also, it is not true that the status quo has any greater right to exist. WP rules do not require editors to discuss before making any changes. It requires us to discuss after changes have been reverted. ] ] 16:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: The idea is that once you've been reverted, just once, you discuss if you think there is a reason for the change. But we've aired our respective views thoroughly now. Let's move on. ] (]) 09:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==In earlier versions ...== |
|
|
|
|
|
I repeatedly stumble over the passage (emphasis is mine): |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''In earlier versions'''', Melkor's first reign ended after the Elves, the eldest of the Children of Ilúvatar, awoke at the shores of Cuiviénen, and the Valar resolved to rescue them from his malice. The Valar waged devastating war on Melkor, and destroyed Utumno. Melkor was defeated by the Vala Tulkas, bound with a specially forged chain, Angainor, and brought to Valinor, where he was imprisoned in the Halls of Mandos for three ages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ''Silmarillion'' in Tolkien's work is an ancient epic that has been published in part in several books, one of which is called ''The Silmarillion''. I edited the intro to make this distinction. ] (]) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
The expression "In earlier versions" implies that in ''later versions'' this was told differently. But no such information follows. While the next paragraph starts with "According to later texts", this pagraph deals with the Dagor Dagorath, an entirely different event. |
|
|
|
: You mean ]. ] (]) 06:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Image Request == |
|
Can anyone provide information on how the Enemy's first reign ended ''in later versions''? If not, should we not rather remove this qualification? ] ] 16:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: Hard to see what purpose it serves. Let's do without it. ] (]) 08:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
{{image request}} ] (]) 15:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: {{U|Twillisjr}} - please see my comments on your image request at ], as the same considerations apply. We can't randomly use non-free images; photographs don't exist; and fan art can only be used with great caution, and we already have one such in the article, so the options here are to put it mildly very limited. ] (]) 17:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{Talk:Morgoth/GA1}} |
|
