Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia

Name
I'm not sure if our naming conventions apply, since this is a title, and it is typeset "J.R.R. Tolkien", not "J. R. R. Tolkien" by the publisher. dab (𒁳) 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

History
That entire history section needs a credible citation. - PKM 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see some of that is in Drout's blog . Will so note. - PKM 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below, without speaking to the merits of the case on either side. This topic should probably be followed up in a wider venue - MOS pages or naming conventions pages - to make the guidelines more clear about what to do in cases such as these. Top-down processes are more effective than bottom-up processes in achieving standardization. Dekimasu よ! 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) As referred to above, the title of the book as it was printed is J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, without spaces between initials. However, Tolkien's own article is placed under J. R. R. Tolkien, in accordance with general naming conventions and as decided here; in consequence, User:Koavf has moved the present article twice to J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, without any attempt to discuss the issue, and the move was reverted last time. Súrendil 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia → J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia

Per manual of style, I believe the current page is correct. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. This is strictly a style issue, and the reverts/moves to make the article compliant with the manual of style are good.  It should not have been reverted in the first place without a good reason/discussion. Neier 12:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly, as I moved it, per rationale above. Many of my moves were reverted at the same time as this one, regardless of convention, discussion, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * um, was there any discussion before you decided you wanted to move the article? This article originally resided at "J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia". If you want to move it elsewhere, pray let us know beforehand. This is a title, and as such does not fall within the scope of our naming policy. --dab (𒁳) 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is about the title of a book. I don't see where the MOS authorizes taking liberties with the title of a book. older ≠ wiser 00:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually, if you look at the logs, here and here, I think the story goes: (1) Koavf moved the article on 3 July 2007; (2) Moe Epsilon moved it back over the redirect on 8 July; (3) Anthony Appleyard deleted the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia redirect on 13 October and moved the article again per a "req" (presumably a request at requested moves). Carcharoth 01:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? - the story here is that the editor of the encyclopedia wanted the spaces in the title, but failing to uses spaces was only one of a long list of complaints he had about the publishers. What we see on the cover is effectively the publisher's house style being used against the wishes of the editor (it's somewhere on his blog). It really doesn't matter which we use here on Wikipedia. I agree that the title is technically without spaces, and so, as has been said, our naming conventions don't apply, as we know what the name of the book is. However, my feeling that if it is left at the "spaces" title, there will be less time wasted over it in the future, and people are less likely to ask for it to be moved from that title to the "no spaces" title. Do we really want this to end up on WP:LAME? I say leave it at the "spaces" title and explain in the text why the typography is what it is in the image of the book's front cover. Carcharoth 01:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The salient factor here, of course, is that the publishing house's choice is what people see. What the editor wanted is irrelevant, trumped by what the publisher did.  Gene Nygaard 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Why not WP:LAME it? :) 70.55.84.13 08:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Not only does that appear to be the name of the book, but in general (mostly in other cases) the principle Koavf is trying to enforce often goes against the grain of Manual of Style. Koavf can achieve his uniformity by creating redirects. One will be left behind here. Gene Nygaard 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is the title of a book -- does the MOS really authorize taking liberties with the titles of books? older ≠ wiser 00:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

right. since there is no consensus, and I created this article, I will move it back to where I originally created it at, and from where it was moved without discussion. Clearly, the correct approach is discuss first and move later. I do not do this because J.R.R. is superior, but because I am annoyed that Koavf should have moved the article without discussion, and later made a lot of noise about "no discussion" when he was reverted. If anyone wants to pursue this, try Consensus. dab (𒁳) 17:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to get really picking about the typography, you might need a reliable source that says that it is indeed "no spaces" after the first two dots. Maybe it is actually a "thin space"? See here. We even have an article that mentions this: Space (punctuation). I'm pretty sure we are not dealing with the Mongolian Vowel Separator ("A thin space character used in Mongolian to cause the final two characters of a word to take on different shapes"), but this might be a Thin Space ("One fifth (sometimes one sixth) of an em wide"), or even a Hair Space ("Thinner than a thin space"). I don't think we want to get into Punctuation Space, Zero Width Space, Zero Width Non Joiner, Zero Width Joiner, and Narrow No-Break Space... My main point about "does it matter", it that it is likely that some well-meaning editor will try and request a move back to the "spaces" version at some point in the future. That was less likely to happen the other way around, in my opinion. Carcharoth 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tolkien Encyclopedia cover 2006.jpg
Image:Tolkien Encyclopedia cover 2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)