FANDOM


Proper acknowledgment of Wikipedia material

We should show a suitable source attribution on any page that copies slabs of text.

The Calgary Wikicity has a template called "Wikipedia" which goes like this:

{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #E0E0E0; background-color: #F8F8F8" |- | style="font-size: 90%" | This page uses content from the English '''[[Wikipedia:Main Page|Wikipedia]]'''. The original content was at '''[[Wikipedia:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]'''. The list of authors can be seen in that page's history. As with the {{SITENAME}}, the content of Wikipedia is available under the [[Wikia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]. |}

We could do the same. Preferably a shorter name for it, such as "enWP": "

Small Wikipedia logo This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Community Portal/Archive 1. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with The One Wiki to Rule Them All, the text of Wikipedia is available under the Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.

". I don't know how its internal templates work, but somebody around here probably does and someone active in WP almost certainly does, because its form looks like a WP standard. If nobody offers to clarify, then one of us can dissect it. I just may install it as is and see what happens.

Robin Patterson 00:33, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Now done -- see Template_talk:EnWP -- Robin Patterson 01:04, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)


Middle-earth dates

How should we express these? At this moment we have at least 40 links written in the form "xxxx T.A.". But Wikipedia uses "T.A. xxxx" and there could be value in following that.

For less typing, long-term, however, we could remove the full stops and say "TA xxxx" for the Third Age and "FA xxxx" for the Fourth.

Thoughts? (Please!)

Robin Patterson 01:04, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)


I've been using the short form in the last few days. Robin Patterson 01:45, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)


What's to make the distinction between the 1st and 4th ages using this abbreviation? --Cymra37 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First Age is mentioned relatively rarely in "Lord of the Rings", so I suggest that it can be stated in full with little inconvenience. Robin Patterson 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Image use policy?

( copied from Firebird's talk page, because Firebird has not edited in the last 6 months and is possibly no longer looking at that page)

Hi there, I'm new to this wiki, but I've written loads on the Memory-Alpha Star Trek wiki. I wondered, what is your image-use policy? Can you upload images from the DVDs as screencaps? Echidna 19:03, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea, sorry, but some of our contributors probably know. Robin Patterson 20:03, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Because, if we can use the images from DVDs, like we do on Memory Alpha, it would make the site soooo much better. It also depends on how much filespace this wiki has assigned to it. See here: [1] for what's been set up for MA. Echidna 08:21, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Have you tried the central authority at http://wikicities.com/wiki/Help:Images? Robin Patterson 11:22, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Missing images

There are loads of missing images for different pages. I'm not quite sure what has happened with them. Any ideas?--Darth Mantus 13:22, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

They are currently missing because they usually don't copy over automatically when you copy a page from another site. Need separate importing. A fiddly job for someone who's keen on that sort of thing, rather than creative people such as you? Robin Patterson 19:23, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien Languages

The Tolkien Languages Wiki could do with some help. Any quenya/sindarin/other Tolkien language speakers here? -- Reginald (Talk) 13:21, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Shouldnt that wiki be merged here? Most of their 34 articles are already covered here Gimli 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Gimli, but I think that perhaps the wikia should be renamed 'Tolkien' wiki instead of 'The Lord of the Rings' wiki. Tolkien wiki would be more inclusive. —Mirlen 20:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the point of the wiki, and what makes it unique from the vast number of other wikis is the fact that it concentrates (or is supposed to) on The Lord of the Rings. At least that is what Robin Patterson stated.
I see. --Mirlen 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It is also for all Tolkien related material since no other wikicities wikia wiki covers that Gimli 11:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This wiki is supposed to focus on The Lord of the Rings, but it actually does not. It gathers mostly any Middle-Earth related articles. So, my advice would be: either discourage addition of articles loosely (if at all) related to the LotR, or explicitly describe this wiki as gathering any piece of information about Middle-Earth (and/or Tolkien). --Athyndmion 13:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am in favor of merging this wiki with the one on languages. Anyway, even though languages are not the key interest of this wiki, we should pay attention to the names of the articles. Names are of utmost importance in the LotR, and in all Tolkien's literature, so I consider it a necessity to give a few sentences about the names appearing in the titles of the articles. At the very least, the meaning of the names should be given in English, when known. To encourage people to add information on meaning and etymology, I have created a template: Template:Etymology needed. --Athyndmion 13:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be useful. To save typing, a redirecting shortcut such as Template:Etym can be used. Robin Patterson 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose a wiktionary-like component of this wiki. I have a comprehensive dictionary myself, and some Tolkien langs are appearing in Wiktionary. --Cymra37 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem having "stub" articles that give the meaning of a non-English word. We already have many articles with Tolkien-invented words as their titles.
Some of them might expand with illustrations of where the word is used. We could think up a suitable category name for them too. (As this discussion is getting lengthy and has potential to go further, I propose a new page for agreed "Languages" principles, with its talk page for related ideas and questions, including much of what's on this page.) Robin Patterson 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Canon?

I noticed the bulk of Gimli's latest entries are of non-canon material. I had originally thought the intent of the wiki was The Lord of the Rings, will you guys be focusing on the Roleplaying material and not the primary works of J.R.R. Tolkien? Thanks, and keep up the great work. --Hyarion 06:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the non-canon stuff would be great to have here, to make it different to wikipedia, and since other wikis like star wars and star trek also use plenty of non-canon material Gimli 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, non-canonical simply means that it was not penned by the hand of J.R.R Tolkien himself. By that definition, nothing in any of these Tolkien-themed communities is canonical. But who cares about "the canon"? This is not a religion, after all. As it is all non-canonical, non-canonical is all right by me as long as it is related directly to the theme of the community. (Now, if we could only get rid of the junk in the Wanted Pages section.)--N3rus 07:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

vote for featured

Theres a vote going on at wikia for featured wikis, vote here for this wiki to be featured! Its about time it was, its larger than some of the ones that have been featured. Gimli 05:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Middle-earth big enough for so many wikis?

Hi, I was wondering what makes LotR.Wikia.com unique when compared to The Tolkien Wiki, Tolkien Gateway, and Wikipedia, etc. It juse seems silly that the Tolkien community works aganist eachother when we could all work together on one wiki. --24.249.154.83 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I pretty much agree but...

  • Wikipedia:
    • Wikipedia is a very general encyclopedia, so it is not specifically dedicated to Tolkien or Middle-Earth.
    • A specific wiki on such or such topic is welcome on the web.
    • Concentrating every possible things in wikipédia is certainly not a good idea.
  • Specific wikis:
    • Yet, gathering contributors to improve working force is good,
    • but diversity is also a necessity.
  • This wikia:
    • This specific wikia is supposed to focus on The Lord of the Rings (book and movies and RPGs etc), while other wikis are about Middle-Earth and Tolkien in general.
    • Unfortunately, I have the impression that this wikia is developping into a general Tolkien-related wiki.
    • Other specificity: it is a wikia, so it is taking advantage of the wikia infrastructure and the big wikia community gravitating around the central wikia.

--Athyndmion 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that having wikis based on the same thing is silly and we could accomplish so much more if we put our heads together and either worked as one or set specific concentrations for the wikis. --Hyarion 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Some say that the world is getting smaller through technology. Tosh! It is getting bigger! And it seems to me to be plenty large enough for many Tolkien-themed sites/wikis/communities. (Please see my thoughts on Hyarion's proposal below.) LOTR Wiki is only a name. The scope vis-à-vis Tolkien's works and Middle Earth is very broad as clearly stated on the front page banner.--N3rus 07:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien Gateway

Hey you guys (I'd have posted this on the talk page, but because it's vandalized, it's screwing up my compy and won't let me on)! Tolkien Gateway is in need of more people to help out. If you're interested, head on over! (the link is in the above subject). -His Lordship - Darth Vader 03:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think the best approach for the Tolkien community would be to combine our efforts at Tolkien Gateway with lotr.wikia.com, if the community feels this is the better home then we would be happy to migrate the content from TG to here. Here's a comparison I've thrown together, feel free to edit it. I really don't want to bring up TG here since we are essentially competing but I've just grown tired of two groups attempting to do the same thing, we could be doing so much more if we worked together. --Hyarion 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Tolkien Gateway lotr.wikia
Founded in 2003 Founded in 2005
5,500 articles 2,500 articles
37,593 edits 13,936 edits
1,875,298 views 37,262 page views
Non-profit For-profit
Own our server Shared with wikia
No advertisements Advertisements
Run our own IRC network n/a
Own TolkienNews.net n/a
Host various Tolkien sites n/a
Work with Tolkien Societies and websites n/a
Work with companies like Sideshow Collectibles n/a
More visitors More editors
Hold giveaways n/a
Guest chats
Can install any extensions/skins Forced to follow Wikia
Less spam More spam
3,269 images 369 images
Admins are voted on by the community Admins get promoted simply by asking
Active admins Most active admin last edited over a month ago



As my opinion was solicited, I think...

  1. addy's don't matter. It isn't as if they are obtrusive here.
  2. size doesn't matter. In time, what is the smaller can become the bigger. Hell, Microsoft used to be cheered because they were the little guy taking on that 3-letter company. Who were they again? : )
  3. numbers and ratios of visitors to editors doesn't matter. I prefer a small pond to a big one and would rather live in a village of one or two hundred than a city of one or two million.
  4. who owns the server doesn't matter. It's not like I own it after all. (But, I could be bought off ; )
  5. who profits doesn't matter. We all take profits (called wages or salaries) every day from the sale of our labor, so I don't regard it to be anything to fear or sneer.
  6. the manner of determining who is an admin doesn't matter because I never want to be one. I work all day as a system/database administrator for a very large organization, so I have no interest in such responsibility or who has such responsibility when I am doing something for pure enjoyment.
  7. chat doesn't matter. I don't chat online with folks I have never met in person no matter how friendly we are, so such a feature does not appeal to me.
  8. giveaways and gimmicks don't matter.
  9. look and feel doesn't matter as long as it works.
  10. relative freedom (i.e. to Wikia or not to Wikia) doesn't matter.
  11. spam doesn't matter. After all, spam could be the work of the other guy's agents hurling rotten tomatoes in this guys theater. (Not an accusation, just meant to demonstrate that the relative amount of spam should not be that important.)
  12. numbers of admins and their activity level (24/7 as opposed to one or two hours a week/month/year) doesn't matter. Hey, the less active they are, the less likely they are to bully me. (I get enough of that at my office.)
  13. the outcome of this debate doesn't matter. I think that there is enough room in the world for 2 (or 3 or 4 or 5...) Tolkien-themed Wiki communities.
  14. that being an aspiring author, I just want to write. I care very little whose chalkboard it is. However,...
  15. loyalty does count for something, and as I was here, however briefly, before I saw the there.... However,...
  16. going along with one's fellows does count for something, however little it may be, and if everyone else agreed to quit this for that, then....

--N3rus 07:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response N3rus, just out of curiosity, I guess the big question is, what does matter? ;) --Hyarion 07:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Important things matter and unimportant ones do not. Above, I have expressed what is and is not important to me, and not all items are negatives. See items 14, 15, and 16.--N3rus 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that both this site and Tolkien Gateway have their own value and purpose. I visited the Gateway after getting a note from Hyarion and it seems very nice. But this place can offer a specialty, particularly if we can keep it from becoming a general Tolkien-and-his-works site. (I don't know if it can be kept from becoming a general site; too bad there's no way to have visitors here get linked to the Gateway when they want to know/write about things that aren't in the LOTR movies/books/RPGs.) My current personal interest is The Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit, or the Silmarillion, or Tolkien's life. (I get enough of that from my sister who's getting her PhD in Tolkien. I'll have to send her to the Gateway. :) The focus of this site, diffused though it may be, is what appeals to me. I can go other places, including the Gateway now that I know it exists, for other information.
Middle-earth/the world/the net is large enough for both sites. The fact that I found out about the Tolkien Gateway on this site should show that having more than one site is a good thing. The more high-quality Tolkien sites there are, the more people will find out about him and his work. Isn't that part of the goals of both sites, to introduce people to, and educate them about, Middle-earth? Yes, there will be some overlap between the sites; it's unavoidable since they were inspired by a single man (Tolkien) but they aren't competing. The purposes of each are different, at least in part.Maybe we could figure out a way to work together? Legolas and Gimli work together, right?
(Hyarion, I thought your description of yourself as a fan on the Gateway was cute.) Arwen Skywalker 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I too was invited to visit Tolkien Gateway and been aksed to weigh in on this issue. From what I saw Tolkien Gateway is a well put together site. But that doesn't really matter. Nor do any of the stats that Hyarion laid out. After taking time to think it over I am placing myself into the same camp as N3rus and Arwen Skywalker. There is room for both on the internet as well as all of the other Tolkien related wikis out there. If any one feels that Tolkien Gateway or any of the others are a better place for you to send you energy, by all means don't let my opinion, and that is all it is, stop you from go where you think your efforts will do the most good. As for me this is were I intend to stay, possible untill the lights go out. Razor77 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a good compromise to the mission of the LOTR Wiki—please see my query on this below—would be to allow any Tolkien content to be created so that it is there for reference but just never feature it. That would expand the realm a bit and give those such as myself a broader canvas without intruding on the LOTR-only folks.—N3rus 08:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Arwen and Razor, thanks for your replies! And thanks for the compliment regarding my user page Arwen, lol. While I suppose there is 'room' I still feel everyone working together could accomplish more than two communities working separately to accomplish the same goal, but hey, I'm out numbered ;) I believe this wiki was going to concentrate specifically on LotR which is good to have a niche, but it seems to have strayed away as of late. I wish we could come up with a compromise so each wiki could focus on a specific area but unfortunately from the beginning our goal at TG was to have one site where everyone could access everything and I really don't want to take away from that goal. So we'll wish you the best of luck, Namarie. --Hyarion 07:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how this proposed merge would work anyway. I understand Hyarion's idea of achieving the same goal, and I think that this wiki should look at concentrating more on the world of LOTR as it intially set out to do. KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email 
If that is what everyone wants, then the front page should be changed to remove 'as well as anything related to J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy universe of Middle-earth.', 'The Silmarillion', and 'The Hobbit'. These suggest that LOTR Wiki has a broader mission.—N3rus 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not that far, but we should just concentrate on Middle-Earth and its history, and not so much on the films and actors etc.  KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email 

Question About Mission of LOTR Wiki

The above conversation has raised a very important question to my mind about the mission of the LOTR Wiki. When I first arrived just a few days ago, I took the description in the banner of the Main Page quite literally:

"This is a place for information and discussion about the Lord of the Rings books and films as well as anything related to J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy universe of Middle-earth."[emphasis added]
I took this to mean, "LOTR first, but not LOTR only." Was I mistaken? Is this Wiki actually intended to be LOTR only? The other guy's site doesn't need any help. Great site but does not need anyone to help with the writing. Here, the help appears to be needed and wanted and some new blood, your's truly excepted, has recently arrived. It may be that my inference from the above quote from the site banner was faulty, and I do not wish to work against the intentions of those who have been here before me. Could someone provide me some guidance on this? Is the intent "LOTR first and only?" However, if "LOTR first, but not LOTR only" is the intent, then what is the balance?—N3rus 07:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually when the wiki was created I had this discussion with the admin though I'm not sure where it is now; it was originally intended solely for content found within The Lord of the Rings. However as people seem to vanish rather quickly the focus has changed a lot from the video games to non-canon role playing articles, etc. "The other guy's site doesn't need any help" - please please do not say that :p we have hundreds of ideas which we have been unable to accomplish/complete due to the need for more editors. --Hyarion 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Then maybe I should say that LOTR Wiki needs more help. How about that?—N3rus 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would still very much to like to know what others here intend the mission of the LOTR Wiki to be. Being a newcomer, I should not do anything that is not in keeping with the goals and intentions of those who came before. I just need to know what that is.—N3rus 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In our first main page, from 8 March 2005 it says "This will hopefully become a succesful website with Lord of the Rings information!". It may seem that this refers to only LOTR, but I think we were also meant to be the wikia (then wikicities) community's general Tolkien related site. For instance, as early as 25 May 2005 we had an article on Morgoth, one of the characters from the Silmarillion and not to do with lord of the rings. Wikia has websites on almost every popular movie/book series so I think that there should be a general wiki here related to middle earth. Gimli 10:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

colours

I thought it would be nice to have a different coloured background, and maybe some other changes to the design, what does everyone think? see also the talk at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css Gimli 08:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

fiction

All references to "fiction" or "fictional" should be annihilated. This includes categories of fictional things. you can do a search here (hopefully will be empty soon) Gimli 13:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. There are many ways for something to be real without being a tangible part of the known universe. For me, Middle Earth is real and not fictional, so I don't want anyone poking holes in my bubble, thank you very much--N3rus 07:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to write an article as a creative story as if it was a relating of a true event instead of in the form of an encyclopedic entry about a fictional one. And being of a creative turn of mind, I like to adopt Tolkien's own methods of storytelling. What is the approach that is prefered here?—N3rus 09:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Actor

Would it be possible to create an Infobox:actor template that would be suited for use on pages of the LOTR movie performers?--N3rus 10:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Found Infobox:actors template.—N3rus 07:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stealing Ideas

I think there are a few things that we could shamelessly steal from the other guys--especially in the area of templates such as those for user infoboxes and lore ratings. Of course, maybe these things are already available here, and I am just an ignorant puss about them.--N3rus 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you N3rus. In fact I just finished copying over the lore templates form Tolkien Gateway. I also created a template to tag items that are taken from Tolkien Gateway ({{TGCp}}) to give credit where it is due. As for the infoboxes, start copying them over |-). Razor77 20:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice credit template. Although this seems to rather increase my fears that the wikis will simply end up copying content from each other instead of focusing on separate unique ideas. Over the years I've come to the realization that wikis are a lot like forums; 1 active forum with a lot of posts everyday is much more appealing than 2 inactive forums without any direction. I think that's why wikis like Wookieepedia were able to grow so quickly, they were all working together and there was only one wiki. --Hyarion 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem stealing ideas such as the lore rating boxes, but I have no intention of "borrowing" content from any source including Wikipedia, The Encyclopedia of Arda, and the Tolkien Gateway. Being an aspiring writer, I want to do original work. It is somewhat slower that way, but I have a great deal more pride in the result than if I just took the work from someone else regardless of attribution. If you and I both wrote an original article on some topic, we would inevitably write very different things, and that would not constitute duplication unless we coincidentally wrote exactly the same things. Given the difference in our ages, cultures, and life experiences, it is quite doubtful, in reality, that we would duplicate each other even when writing on the same topic. To that end, multiple different works on the same topics is of greater value than just one.—N3rus 06:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Razor77, Thanks for doing the legwork on the lore templates. Now, what do we have to do to work out the user infobox thing? I tried to figure that out myself, but maybe I don't have the necessary privilege. I just don't understand how it works.—N3rus 06:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pages on Evolving Manuscript

Does anyone care to include short pages on textual rejects? I thought, for example, to add a page about Trotter, but then thought that others might not want to include such things. What do you think?—N3rus 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Be gone ye accursed word!

User:Gimli argues above that the word 'fiction' should be banished from the LOTR Wiki. I have already expressed by wholehearted agreement with that idea, and I would like to extend it by proposing that another word be sent with it into exile. That is the word 'trilogy'. A trilogy is a set of three stories in which each is complete in the absence of the others but the three, taken together, form a larger story. The best way to see this is in a comparison of the original Star Wars movie trilogy to the Lord of the Rings movie series. Each of the Star Wars movies, which are now numbered IV, V, and VI since the arrival of the prequel trilogy, can stand alone as a complete story. One needn't have seen the other two to understand and enjoy a particular one, but having seen each in its place reveals the larger theme of the works. Peter Jackson's LOTR film series, on the other hand, forms a complete story only when viewed in their combined entirety. The same is true of Tolkien's books. For this reason, neither the books nor the movies are properly to be considered trilogies. In the LOTR Wiki, there are over 150 pages that use the term, and six articles have it in their title.—N3rus 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.