Talk:Smith of Wootton Major

Untitled
I improved this a little, mostly to make people aware of the new edition with its fuller explanation of just what is going on.

I moved up the descriptive portions, my own and the existing material, so that they are all together.

The plot summary needs improving, but I do not have the book to hand. All I did was to correct the statement that Nokes was punished, which is not accurate and is contrary to Tolkien's feelings in the matter. Nokes has some good aspirations, even if his understanding is often poor.

Some illustrations would be useful, if they could be obtained without breach of copyright.

--GwydionM 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No longer a 'stub'?
What's the definition? I'd have thought it was now large enough to qualify as 'regular'. --GwydionM 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi, I put in an infobox, but it's incomplete. We need the number of pages, and a cover image. --Kjoonlee 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If we can't find a cover image for the first UK edition, I think a newer edition image would be OK if we use an image caption to point that out. --Kjoonlee 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio Adaptation
Wasn't there a BBC Radio adaptation of "Smith of Wootton Major" at one point? 176.61.97.121 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Plot summary" text here is certainly not a copyvio
Elphion certainly did NOT copy from the site you named, so the copyying must be in the other direction. Here's why. Elphion made this edit at 18:53 on 2 May 2008, which consisted of a series of small copy-edits, e.g. he changed "...Wootton Major is well-known..." to "Wootton ...Major was well-known..." and so on throughout the section; and the other website has the text WITH Elphion's copy-edits included. So we do not have a copyvio in Smith of Wootton Major. The "Plot summary" text was constructed in numerous stages by Wikipedia editors, so the text is properly licensed.
 * OK, I'm fine accepting that. Due to the URL of the website having the date 2005/10 in it, before those edits took place, I thought that the original text was a close paraphrasing of the text on that website, which Elphion updated to be the original text. None of the other texts on the site seemed to be sourced from Wikipedia/plagiarised without sourcing, and there weren't any archive links to it. Anyway, doesn't matter now. 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry, was having dinner, just seen your comments on my talk page. Yeah, let's get on with the review. 19:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)