Revision as of 11:57, 16 April 2023 editJc37 (talk | contribs)Administrators49,003 editsm indent← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:48, 26 November 2024 edit undoChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,207 edits archivingTag: Replaced |
(14 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{GA|01:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)|topic=Language and literature|page=2|oldid=1028448046}} |
|
{{GA|01:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)|topic=Language and literature|page=2|oldid=1028448046}} |
|
{{ME-project|class=GA|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mythology |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Novels |importance=mid |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Literature |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
{{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}} |
|
|
|
|
== '']'' == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised that ''Unfinished Tales'' is not even listed, let alone discussed. It is far more substantial than '']'' or '']'', and I see no reason to exclude it, but I don't know Tolkien research particularly well, so I may be missing something?--] (]) 21:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: We basically have to go by what scholars write; and no text article can (or should) be exhaustive, but I've managed to work in a brief mention. ] (]) 07:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Addition of unused David Day sources == |
|
|
Ok, you put the header here. I'll ask straight out: What is your issue with ]? - <b>]</b> 11:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There has been a sudden addition of wholly unused David Day book citations, across several articles in the past few minutes. |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are multiple good reasons why this is undesirable. |
|
|
|
|
|
:1) These articles are fully (and richly) cited already. |
|
|
|
|
|
:2) The existing sources are either to Tolkien himself (primary, for the facts about what he wrote) or to scholars and critics. |
|
|
|
|
|
:3) Much of Day's output just regurgitates Tolkien's statements in the narrative text, i.e. it adds nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
:4) Other Day output includes his personal pet opinions, not substantiated by any of the (very large) amount of Tolkien scholarship. He is not and does not claim to be a scholar; but he is writing (when not just copying and illustrating Tolkien) on scholarly matters, that have been covered in great depth. |
|
|
|
|
|
:5) There is no value in adding unused books to these articles; they already contain a plentiful supply of better books and research articles which are used. In other words, these are not "sources" as nothing is sourced to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Therefore, it is undesirable to add such materials. ] (]) 11:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::An author does not need to be a "scholar" (however we are to define that) to be used as a reference. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Everything else that you note is essentially ] or ], so none of that holds any water outside of subjective opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not strongly tied to the additions, I just think the removal is more than a little heavy handed, and am really not as yet seeing a good reason for the removals. - <b>]</b> 11:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
|