Talk:Round World Version of Tolkien's legendarium/Archive 1

Revert response
In response the the revert comment here I want to revert the revert. Reasoned opinions are welcome. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are repeated refs that are identical. By using named refs the redundancy is removed. In truth my next step would be to replace all these bare refs with proper citations and sfns.
 * First of all, there are no "bare refs" in the article; everything is already properly and fully cited. I don't care if you prefer a different system.  I've established a referencing system here, which I think is preferable, and per WP:CITEVAR you should be respecting it.  You have had absolutely nothing to do with this article up to now.  It languished as a poor in-universe stub for fifteen years and finally got deleted.  I've spent three years getting it undeleted again so I could improve it.  I have absolutely no time for drive-by editors who come along and try and impose a different way of working on those who are doing the work. SpinningSpark 11:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The 'See also' section is empty with the exception of a portal template. This leaves the page with an ugly layout as the whole section in not needed.
 * The layout was even uglier before I moved it to See also with the portal link right at the top of the article. See also is where WP:LAYOUT says portal links should go and WP:PORTL says to make the section if it does not already exist.  I'm agnostic on whether this article needs the portal link or not, but since you gave no reason whatsover for removing it, let alone a reason based in guidelines, you had no business removing it. SpinningSpark 11:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for (very likely) rescuing this article!
 * I have added two links in See also, which make the section no longer appear empty. I think they are of interest, but they are only to later sub-sections within the cosmology article already linked linked in the intro. If you don't think that's an improvement, please revert. (Also feel free to improve the naming of the links if you can come up with something better.) Daranios (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. SpinningSpark 11:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised I hadn't noticed this at AfD or elsewhere (I've added it to the Middle-earth template now), but thanks guys for the hard work, it's immeasurably improved. I understand the sensitivity, but all other Middle-earth articles that use short-form references have them automated with sfn (or harvnb if needed), so it would be nice to do the same here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * : Um, the whole WikiProject uses a reference system which has "Sources" divided into "Primary" (Tolkien) and "Secondary", with the sole exception of this article. The project actually always also, as stated above but I expect you didn't see it, links any short-form references in the text to the Sources using "sfn" links. I see you have reverted also the embedded wikilinks, with the comment that you'd not have reverted those if they'd been separate, so I'll put them back. You have also reverted the ISBN-13s, which again are in use across the entire WikiProject, so if that's ok I'll put them back also: these sorts of changes really ought to be quite uncontroversial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap, I have a lot of respect for your work, but as for the Wikiproject, it has had 17 years to do something with this article and has done nothing. They have done nothing to improve it, nothing to stop it getting deleted, and nothing to help get it undeleted.  Guidelines permit any appropriate referencing system and the community has not given Wikiprojects the power to overrule guidelines.  Guidelines do not say that related articles should be consistent with each other.  This has been established in numerous debates, and on other style issues like ENGVAR they pretty much say the opposite.  The Wikiproject guide on referencing is littered with redlinks to project citation templates that have been deleted, so it shows how well that guide is maintained.  So all in all I'm quite comfortable ignoring it as it is me that has done all the graft in rescuing and expanding the article. I would have more sympathy (I still wouldn't like it but I'd have more sympathy) if you were intending to make a major addition to the article and needed to add new sources.  But you have given no indication that is what you want to do. SpinningSpark 20:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On links in references, here's what I don't like about them. Imo, the useful link in any reference is a link that takes the reader to the source. For a book source, the isbn link serves that purpose.  Anything else is clutter that is likely to distract anyone trying to track it down.  There's a case for author links where they have an article, and links to articles on the book are marginal.  But in this article, except for one case, these are all repeated links that are already in the article body.  As for links to publishers, why would anyone want to follow them? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks. I see that you are determined to stand for your rights. However, the sfn style has two or three definite advantages. It allows readers to navigate straight to the right source with one click. It provides the year which gives editors some context and usually enough disambiguation to be going on with. It enables bidirectional checks that refs go somewhere, and that sources are actually used. Actually it also helps to ensure that sources contain surnames and dates if we're looking for reasons... and all of that helps to limit driveby cruft, though I doubt that'd be an issue here. As for linking authors and publishers, apart from navigation it shows editors that the sources are of good repute with notable connections, something that would appear to have been a serious issue for this article. The project has faced a wave of deletionism in the recent past, so attention to sources, including what I might call their instrumentation, is not unimportant.

I wouldn't be saying anything here if I didn't mean to work on the article, but if it's going to be this difficult I may not bother. I've already added an image and linked the article into the navbox. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of being difficult when it is you who are refusing to accept an article's established referencing style and have turned it into a big issue. I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of referencing styles here (take it to a policy page if you want something mandated generally) but you can read my essay on the subject if you are interested. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't, I said the situation was difficult, we are having to talk much more than edit; and I'm not demanding a change to policy, I'm explaining to you why it would be a great deal better to adjust this one article, which you are certainly free to do as it's a recent thing. I'll move the image and action the item below; and I've added a source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Christopher's prose
The sentence "Christopher has been criticised for losing some of his father's superior prose in the process of doing this." is not easy to cite; there doesn't seem to be anything in Scholar about this, and a wider search too draws a blank, though there are plenty of confounding items for such a search. I'm fairly sure that none of the scholarly books I've read has raised it as an issue. The overall style of Silmarillion has been attacked as nowhere near as exciting as Lord of the Rings, but that's JRR Tolkien's doing, not Christopher's; people like the LRB's Jenny Turner have attacked Lord of the Rings' prose (and been rebuffed for it); and Christopher's extensive notes in his History of Middle-earth have been attacked as laboured. But the specific claim that Christopher messed up Silmarillion is something else. Actually it doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At one point I was looking at a book source that said this and gave a specific example of something Christopher had drastically edited down from his father's original prose. I can't for the life of me find it again.  I thought it was one of the books I used as sources but I may be wrong on that. It will be no great loss if it has to go.
 * A bit off-topic, but on the criticisms of the Silmarillion, I couldn't disagree more. It was just what I needed to read after the LOTR.  The notes at the back of LOTR just left me frustated knowing that there was more to the history/mythology that I was only being given clues to.  But the publisher was quite right to reject it.  It would never have worked if it had been published prior to LOTR.  A story was needed first and then the mythology followed even though it was written the other way round. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well in that case we can probably do without the sentence in this particular article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * J. R. R. Tolkien, 1940s.jpg

Canon?
What sources is this article using to determine what is "canonical" and what is not? 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "canonical" here seems to be taken to mean "as it appears in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings", which I find understandable but problematic given that Tolkien was working and reworking his conceptions throughout his life. So I'd vote for simply removing "canonical" and let the rest of the phrase make clear what the Round World version is the alternative to. Daranios (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the author of the article was using the term in a special sense, which we don't need. I've removed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article as written is implying that there is a set in stone and universally agreed upon "canon" for Tolkien's legendarium. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)