User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2020

Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yoga Body has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Chiswick Chap. Yoga Body, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga in Britain

The article Yoga in Britain you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yoga in Britain for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Socks

I've reverted the sock but that reverted you also. You're welcome to use their talk page but creating a new account would just be creating a new sock and I or another Checkuser will find out. It's not hard. And as I told the IP, WP:DUCK shows whose sock they are. No one knows their real identity. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Very good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Group selection

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Group selection you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Group selection

The article Group selection you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Group selection for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Fishy business

Do you fancy involving yourself in any fishy business? I came across the article Saltwater fish and I thought how feeble, and even inaccurate, the article was. Then I looked at Freshwater fish (US bias) and met Groundfish, a term I had not come across before, but which could redirect to Demersal fish. It seems to me that the topics are notable but these articles are ripe for improvement. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have redirected Groundfish immediately, it's an open-and-shut case (like an anglerfish's mouth!). I'll give you a hand with the others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ii's one thing looking at an article like Saltwater fish and thinking it feeble, but when I consider improving it, I find the idea unattractive. There are some perfectly respectable articles such as Deep sea fish, Demersal fish and Pelagic fish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Yes, perhaps AfD is the place for it really. Would you fancy working on Neuroptera instead? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Preferring pests, I have my eye on Mealybug and Scale insect, but could probably bring myself to work on Neuroptera. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well let's start on Scale insect then! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your recent edits on Tolkien topics such as this (I got there via your comment on the Wetwang redirect deletion discussion). It is reassuring that some people are aware of and willing to include the academic and literary responses to Tolkien in the articles (I should have done work on this years ago, and now no longer really have the time). There has always been a tension between that content and the 'in-universe' content (not to mention the 'real-world' things such as films, games and so on). Thank you also for your comments here and this edit. About the latter, I am still a bit shocked at the comment here, which was repeated at the discussion here (which has petered out but you may want to contribute). I agree that "The overkill here is not the pace of deletion discussions, but the amount of articles that exist on fictional beings who have never had any significant scholarly analysis.", but I was a bit taken aback at the strong opinions being expressed by those who (by what they say) show they are not that familiar with Tolkien's works. Hopefully the end result of this will be articles that have more content of the sort you have recently added. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it's appreciated. I wish there were other editors interested in the literary and academic side; clearly there have been some in the past, but there seem to be very few of us today, so the "notability" discussions seem to be tending towards the ill-informed, as you indicate. I will try to save what can reasonably be saved, not least by improving some of the articles which should have been decently worked on years ago. Instead, they are mostly in-universe and adorned with fancruft, with refs only to JRRT: this last presumably was felt to guarantee their survival as if God himself had blessed them... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Any chance of citations to help at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Christopher Tolkien? (Apologies if you had not heard the news.) Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Well there are 4 refs for his death, inc BBC, Guardian, and NYT so not a big problem with notability; the trouble is that the article is scrappy and the refs need to be deployed a bit more intelligently than establishing the fact of his death, n'est-ce pas? I'm no fan of ITN but will have a go at the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Please also see the talk page re: the date of death. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Science of yoga

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Science of yoga you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cinadon36 -- Cinadon36 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Treebeard edit

I'm guessing that your edit was a copy of material from somewhere else in Wikipedia.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick (Talk) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. It was a merge, actually, and I'll flag it on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Couple of points

I am not going to be able to spend much time on this in the coming days, but a couple of points I hope may be of use before I have to break off:

(1) Do you think anything is salvageable from Middle-earth calendar? As far as I can tell, it had a number of merges to it in the past, such as , , , .

Carcharoth Well, it's fathoms deep in fandom, but the lead is quite useful, and it can be cited reliably to Drout, see my reply at the AfD. I assume you are thinking of commenting there. Of course we can cook something up as I suggest whatever the AfD does.

(2) I was looking at Category:Middle-earth poetry (and also Category:Poetry by J. R. R. Tolkien) and was wondering if some of the stubs there might need work and or pre-emptive merging? There are already some redirects there that either signify an earlier merge, or a redirect that was never an article in the first place.

I suspect all the Adventures of Tom Bombadil poems could with benefit be merged into that article, which is safe enough as a JRRT book but still needs considerably better sourcing. As you imply, all the articles are a bit flaky in their current state.

(3) I see the Isenmouthe talk page got deleted in 2008 (this is a tangential side-point). Only mentioning that because the talk pages (even of redirects) were used at one point to track pages. I do have a faint hope that the history of what was where when will be preserved, but I realise that is not that important.

I agree, see below.

I am aware of the renewed activity at the Middle-earth WikiProject page. If I get time again soon, I may try and put some further thoughts there. Some of what you have said has been very on-point and really helpful, particularly the last paragraph here. Thank you again for that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All interesting. I'll try and take a look at these tomorrow. I've already done some merging and some redirecting of stubs, and a lot of scholarly citation. The number of articles is quite rightly coming down, and we'll end up with fewer but much stronger and more encyclopedic articles. I agree that the more it can be done by merging rather than deletion, the less will be lost. That said, a lot of the writing really is very fancrufty and quite often the popular stuff is unciteable, while the depth of JRRT plot detail and citation is way beyond reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have now commented there. Agree with what you said. I assume you are aware of the WTP books (and others)? I have many of those books, but not all (not enough money) and a near-complete run of Tolkien Studies, but am currently unable to get to them (bit of an ongoing upheaval) which is a tad frustrating. Maybe one day. And I really must bow out for a bit now. Best of luck and I will try and check in a bit more often in this area (especially if asked for a reference)... Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Science of yoga

The article Science of yoga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science of yoga for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cinadon36 -- Cinadon36 (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Treebeard statue

Apologies for following along with your edits (when I get the time), but it has at least prompted me to look up the latest on the Treebeard statue design by Tim Tolkien. It has not actually been erected, and our articles are slightly misleading on that at the moment (it doesn't help that the photos out there are quite convincing photoshop jobs). The latest (well, it is from November 2015) appears to be here:

Many people think I have actually completed the Treebeard sculpture because they have « seen the photo in the paper »; Sadly this is NOT the case. The article in the Birmingham Post was a photomontage we had put together using the scale maquette set against the real view of Moseley Green. I was originally commissioned in 2005 and we tried for many years to raise the funds for the project but whilst we had some very keen supporters we still couldn’t manage what was required, so the project was put on hold.

Maybe that and some other info might be useful (I should add these details myself, I know...). Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

stop reverting my edits

My edits on Pippin stood for over a week. To revert them now en masse is uncalled for and the type of harrassment and destoying of otherw work I have been calling out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason for anything, specially not personal abuse. We certainly agree that some of the articles clearly need better sourcing and editing, and I've been doing just that for a while now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scale insect

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scale insect you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scale insect

The article Scale insect you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scale insect for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga for women

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yoga for women you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga for women

The article Yoga for women you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yoga for women for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga for women

The article Yoga for women you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yoga for women for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for a good rewrite of the Gondor article! It needed it. Hog Farm (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Harad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you help with biological immortality?

I ran into some issues with biological immortality where multiple editors simply delete all criticism. The critical material in question is a PNAS paper that I am an author on, so their current line is that I can't insert because of COI, rather than any reason related to the substance of the text. I believe my self-citation is well within reasonable bounds here, but obviously I am not the right person to make that call. Could you help out with this and/or recruit other qualified editors to weigh in on this? Thanks!Joannamasel (talk)

Joanna, good to hear from you, and thanks for thinking of me. Perhaps I can help; and perhaps Cwmhiraeth would know who would be best to address this. (Joanna Masel is a long-time and very serious and knowledgeable editor.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that this problem has cropped up, and pleased to see that the matter is under discussion on the article talk page. Wikipedia benefits from people with expert knowledge and although there is a potential conflict of interest, that does not disqualify such a person from using their expertise, although they should obviously not push theories that are disputed by the wider scientific community. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Elephant cladogram

Hello. I was wondering if you can make another elephant cladogram based on this. LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Elephantidae

	Mammuthus primigenius (woolly mammoth)

	Mammut americanum (Columbian mammoth)

Elephas maximus

	Loxodonta cyclotis (forest elephant)

	Palaeoloxodon antiquus (straight-tusked elephant)

Loxodonta africana (savanna elephant)

Mammut americanum (American mastodon)

Scale insect has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Chiswick Chap. Scale insect, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Pair articles

After Eärendil and Elwing and Galadriel and Celeborn what price Aragorn and Arwen (the tale obviously, but just found out it is up for deletion!) and Tuor and Idril and Beren and Lúthien (pesky book getting in the way!) and Melian and Thingol? Arguments over whose name comes first... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't know either. Both Aragorn and Arwen are I think safe as separate articles and the individual tale probably only deserves a brief mention in one of those places really. I'd have said that Lúthien comes before Beren if it's an article about the pair, she seems far more significant given that like Arwen she's taken the dreadful plunge into mortality... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Would Lúthien and Beren be silly? I see the Idril redirect never got recreated after the AfD. I mentioned the above at the AfD btw, but forgot to ping you. Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not silly at all; and the merged article would be more defensible than either of the two existing articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In an hour or so, I'll create Lúthien and Beren then... Agree that content on The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen can be put elsewhere. Any views (seriously!) on Tuor and Idril and Melian and Thingol? Some of those might still not be defensible, as you put it. Celebrian is feeling left out. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect T&I and M&T are only worth a brief mention somewhere. Celebrian is already a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Carcharoth - your AfD comment gives me pause. Google Scholar comes up with some 70 scholarly papers on The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, so the article certainly is "defensible", indeed it deserves a much better article than the sorry affair that's there now. Not sure we can rescue it at this moment, worse luck, unless some literary Wikipedians appear with their helmet-plumes floating in the wind of their speed, but we can certainly write something better given the wealth of sources. But, courage (as the French say), perhaps we should boldly say at AfD why we think it should be a Keep? If so, adding half-a-dozen citations to the article with at least a sketch of what the text should be would be my work for tomorrow morning. If you could help a little, so much the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is potential, but I am running out of time today. I will try and do something. PS. The interleaving technique that Tolkien uses makes it hard to write articles sometimes! Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I see your draft. I will try and help out later if time, but bit busy today. Carcharoth (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Carcharoth Wow! What I'm doing is evaluating the situation. The choice is a) write it and oppose the AfD, hope it works out b) let the AfD run its course, write a better article c) forget it. I think (a) quite a risky strategy here as it will depend on the closing admin and the !votes may look bad, even if we have sources, text, and a clear rationale to set against unjustified !votes. (b) is a rare strategy, don't think I've ever used it: it would leave an old AfD to invite a second one; but the two articles would be very different. Your thoughts? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty accessing some of the potential sources. My feeling here is that this sort of thing will take a while to do, so best to just let the AfD run its course and see what is possible. Sometimes the sources are not as good as they look. Some may merely be quoting from the text and the reason for the quote might be better put in other articles. My very rough initial thoughts (from what I can see) is that a number of sources focus on the way Tolkien constructed his stories and put this in the context of how (and why) he wrote appendices. The other sources seem mainly to focus on the imponderables (freedom, fate, love, and so on). Getting specific, I was intrigued by 'Madsen, Catherine. 2010. "Eru Erased: The Minimalist Cosmology of The Lord of the Rings." In The Ring and the Cross: Christianity and The Lord of the Rings", but don't have a copy of that. PS. And maybe a secondary source references Tolkien's mention of the tale in Letter 131? Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

May I put some more thoughts (later!) on the talk page of the draft? Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes please! We can take our time, especially as it seem the new article will have practically nothing in common with the old. It'll even have a References section! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. PS. If you see an edit summary that says 'ass', it is a typo for 'add'... Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Careful where you put your fingers! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again

For your work on The Scouring of the Shire and on The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. And also of course your ongoing work on the other articles. I will try and help with a few more polishes here and there. May I ask whether you are planning anything else major soon (e.g. Themes of The Lord of the Rings or sub-topics of that)? PS. I doubt there will be any follow-up from the AfD, but 50 minutes is maybe something of a record for recreation like that! It would be best to put a record of the AfD on the talk page (I will if I can find the right template for that). Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Carcharoth Many thanks. I've found a useful note in Hammond & Scull, but after that I think it's GAN-ready. Would you like to be co-nominator? The other thing is this; I'd like it sorted out peacefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to be co-nom. The thing about citing the Letters correctly is a necessary detail. If you are able to look in Hammond and Scull again, and include in a note what they said about the 1968 version being the first (and I think only English-language) single-volume edition to only include that (and exclude the other appendices) that would be a great help (it could be relegated to a footnote). Am not sure if enough has been written about how some translations adopted this practice of only including A&A and nothing else from the Appendices. We should really discuss this on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've numbered all the letters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought you might like this, albeit from 2011. (I found it while trying and failing to find sources that have discussed Tolkien Studies - the journal). It is notoriously hard to source journal articles and buttress them with reliable and independent sources. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's fascinating. Yet another question: do you recall where Tolkien said that to be interesting, a fairy story would have to look at mortality from the point of view of faery (i.e. the elves)? I've looked through everything I can think of, and Dr G. just gives me "On Fairy Stories". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

My first guess would be from one of his Letters, or failing that another of his essays, and failing that, some obscure corner of HoME.... Good luck finding it! Carcharoth (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've used Dr G several different ways and finally found it: "The Human-stories of the elves are doubtless full of the Escape from Deathlessness." -- Essays Presented to Charles Williams, p. 81. I'll put it into A&A. Verlyn Flieger discusses it splendidly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, is that quotation from the original version different from the later versions? i.e. the later versions that most people read is the 1983 one (see here). Might it be worth seeing if there is anything in the annotated version? I may have that, but it is squirreled away somewhere. I am hoping to be able to look at some books tonight, rather than relying on Dr G! If you can find it, there was something on Luthien, Arwen and Eowyn in NARRATIVE ETHICS IN J. R. R. TOLKIEN’S THE LORD OF THE RINGS where the author cites Flieger and manages to talk about 'splintered light' in that context. Might be too obscure. page 237 FWIW. Carcharoth (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

1964 edition. I've put the thing in, but the niggling thought is that it implies that the tale of A&A, escape from deathlessness and all, was THE POINT of the whole book, something that Flieger doesn't quite say! I wonder if anyone else does? It would be a most satisfying finish to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, as I can't get back to this properly until later today, I see you found the quote from the earlier part of Letter #186 - while looking at this last night I had found that as well, as it is referred to by a number of sources. Is that the 'finish' to the article that you were looking for? I have a couple of other notes to add (either to the article direct or on the talk page). Roughly what times are you around until today? Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with it, and yes, it feels more rounded with JRRT's own views (I sort of think we need a third group of refs, for JRRT commentary: "Secondary by author"? hmm.) Go right ahead and tweak the article, I'll keep an eye on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, will do. I did check in briefly on the merge discussion at the talk page for LotR, but that is getting a bit depressing now, with invective flying around. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I stopped watching when it became clear nothing would happen. BTW how should the merge on Scouring be closed? Uninvolved admin, if there are any left? It seems it's being held open on purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think a request will have to be made at that admin noticeboard that I linked from Jack Upland's talk page. Maybe for all three discussions (Scouring, Radagast [the easy one], and LotR). But I only really have time for article work today. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

About this edit, I spent a while wondering why page 488 of the 'Reader's Guide' didn't have what I was looking for, and then realised that you had been citing page 488 in the 'Chronology'... :-) (Feel free to tweak the citation if there is a better way to give that information.) BTW, I don't have the expanded 3-volume set of The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide that came out in 2017. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Have run out of time today. Still have a few more edits to make, hopefully tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have (finally) finished adding bits here and there. I hope what I added was useful. I failed to find a reliable source expounding on what is said here:

[...] compare Gilraen with Arwen, the other important woman in Aragorn’s life. Both Gilraen and Arwen, faced with death, are invited by Aragorn to look past darkness and uncertainty and see the light which lies beyond, both women speak parting words to Aragorn playing on the double meaning of estel as “hope” and as a name of Aragorn, and both prematurely die of despair.

It did also strike me that Gilraen and Arwen both die "before the next spring". but again, I can't find anyone who has commented on that. Maybe it is in that Mallorn article (which I have not read yet, but will do so later today). Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now read that Mallorn article. Not much about Gilraen, but a very thought-provoking quote from Tolkien that I think would be worth including. I will add at some point today if time. Not quite sure how best to cite it. Could you have a look later? Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, either today or tomorrow. BTW I'm not sure how your See also really fits in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really. Not sure what to do there. Maybe what I need to do is email you a copy of the article. Could I do that? It won't be until Monday now. Carcharoth (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at it when it arrives. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

FA vs. GA vs. B.

I have to agree that FA seems time inefficient (although, without FAs, the front page will one day be blank, que no?)

I'll go one further in suggesting that "B" is probably sufficient for almost anything. What I like about B is that it only requires one other set of eyes (and technically, not even that, but I like the validation). Then again, maybe what I consider "B" is good enough for "GA". I just don't like bugging people.

I did appreciate the two FA processes I went through as I learned a lot and have tried to apply the standards I learned to my later articles. I wish I had more time such that I could become one of the giants of WP like you. Alas, I will have to content myself with being a Journeyman edge-nibbler, producing just a few new articles per year or so.

Cheers, and thank you for helping with Spaceflight! --Neopeius (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, interesting reflections too. I think that some projects which check "B" criteria very carefully are actually making their Bs to GA standard. As for the front page, most GAs are perfectly suitable for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

An Achievement Patch in Recognition

		The SPFLT Achievement Patch
		Thank you for your assistance with Project Spaceflight! Neopeius (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rohan (Middle-earth)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rohan (Middle-earth) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rohan (Middle-earth)

The article Rohan (Middle-earth) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rohan (Middle-earth) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harad

The article Harad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Harad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rohan (Middle-earth)

The article Rohan (Middle-earth) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rohan (Middle-earth) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New user

Don't know about you, but I'm finding the edits I've looked at by the new user Avdmoh spot on. Haven't checked more than a few, but it seems productive to have them editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, many of them, though I'm not sure what this one can have been about, I certainly can't blame anyone for slapping a warning on that. I've written a personal welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Yoga Body

On 15 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yoga Body, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the book Yoga Body asserts that yoga as exercise is a radical break from the spiritual hatha yoga tradition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yoga Body. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Yoga Body), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Great job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it's really appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You're well deserving of this, thankyou for all of the work you've done here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

RE Dutch Reach edit by CC re: "original research"

Middle-earth barnstar

Your GA nomination of Yoga pants

Lysenkoism

Your GA nomination of Lysenkoism

Your GA nomination of Downward Dog Pose

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Your GA nomination of Smaug

Your GA nomination of Downward Dog Pose

Your GA nomination of The Scouring of the Shire

Couple of other thoughts

Seeing your brief touching of The Well at the World's End made me smile and wonder which book you read that in... :-) I was looking at some of the more, um, obscure works I have on Tolkien and wondering where I can best help. Where are the gaps in your library, is what I guess I am asking? Of course, I may have the same gaps. The book I leafed through the other day was The Story of Kullervo, where Huan (we have the redirect Huan (Middle-earth)) is linked to the hound Musti. All a bit obscure, but then I look at this on The Tolkien Gateway, and I wonder whether elements can be incorporated into articles here. Am a bit wary of directly replicating what has been done over there - should that be credited in some way? Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't have Kullervo. I read quite a bit of Morris and have some nice old green-bound editions; couldn't get through Sigurd the Volsung though. I think it's fine to browse the Gateway and see what sources they have used. Much of it is quite well-written and it's often useful for suggestions as well as basic in-universe details. Given that it's another wiki it's not a reliable, citable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't (yet) have The Lay of Aotrou and Itroun, and haven't managed to read my copy of The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, but I did enjoy The Fall of Arthur. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be interested (if not seen before) in Reasons for Liking Tolkien from the London Review of Books, Vol. 23 No. 22 · 15 November 2001, by Jenny Turner. It is long, but has some excellent bits. I wonder what her views would be some 18 years later? Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I read it some years ago. The phrase that stuck in my mind then was "magnificently misprising [his ancient sources]". In the case of orþanc enta geweorc there's no doubt about the misprisal, nor that it was certainly intentional! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW did you come across this satire? Chomsky & Zinn discuss imperialist propaganda in LOTR "Two Towers"? It's very funny. Not easy to use, alas, though it could perhaps get a mention under 'Parodies'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Not seen that before. There are quite a few parodies around, and probably a fair amount of secondary literature on them now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, I am waiting on a couple of books I have ordered before I make a few more edits to the article on The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. Would it be better to put the GA on hold, or is it best to leave it up in case someone decides they want to review it? Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we leave it up, as 99.9% complete. You can always edit it once it's made it to GA, you know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that. Thanks for the advice. I'm not as familiar with GA as I was (though I wasn't even then). I'll keep an eye out and make edits as and when I have the books and other sources available. Carcharoth (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

Chiswick talk page

Regarding the see also link

Batted Ball

Your GA nomination of The Scouring of the Shire

Your GA nomination of Coincident disruptive coloration

Collaboration on motion dazzle?

Your GA nomination of Lothlórien

note re category topic

Your GA nomination of Surya Namaskār

Cimicidae has been nominated for Did You Know

Your GA nomination of Lothlórien

Your GA nomination of Coincident disruptive coloration

Your GA nomination of Surya Namask?r

Thank you

Quick note

Template:Visualization

WP:GAR

Paradisus Judaeorum

Sorry I reverted you here , I hope it is not a mess, but I believe this is a fine GA and I think that GAR is the only proper procedure.GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I did my best, and we'll see what happens. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, would you please either close Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/GA1 as failed or reopen it? It seems pointless to insist on a GAR when an objection to promotion was made immediately. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV, I reopened it as you requested, and GizzyCatBella promptly closed it (noting so above here) so I would be editwarring if I were to touch it again. There seems however to be something approaching a consensus that it's fine as it is; I noted on the talk page that I would leave it alone now, so I think it would be best if you liaised with the other involved editors over there. The article has been edited in some detail since, and I'd say for the better. It seems that there is quite a good cooperation going on so I'd have thought the best thing would be to edit the article collaboratively at this point. Also (again, see above and the previous thread here), both Gizzy and Piotrus seem to feel that as well as it's being fine as a GA, a GAR would be their preferred alternative - not my view but there it is. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you haven't reopened the GA review. See the history of Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/GA1. The review needs to be closed as failed or it should be reopened. This has happened because it wasn't reviewed properly. It isn't reasonable to say now that someone else has to do that work at GAR. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV Now you have me totally confused. I probably took on too much of a challenge reviewing that article and I'm sorry for that, but this morning I reverted my closure of the GA1, removed the symbol from the article, and removed the article's name from the main GA page. GizzyCatBella then undid the closure of the GA1, so I've left the thing alone after that. What else should I have done? I would really like to help here but am in completely unfamiliar territory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA review is at Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/GA1. Please look at that page. You opened the review at 11:53, 14 March and you closed it at 09:51, 16 March. I am asking you to reopen the review on that page. You can say you are failing it because of problems that have come to light. Or you can reopen it and take it from there. It's up to you. I am saying I think you should not have passed it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV OK, thank you very much for the guidance. I've explained on the GA1 page and marked it as failed. I do hope Piotr isn't too upset. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella: FYI. My bad. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Once we have a consensus version, someone can renominate it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Chiswick Chap - no problem, I understand. We’ll make it work eventually.GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iyengar Yoga

Your GA nomination of Roots of Yoga

Your GA nomination of Trauma-sensitive yoga

Your GA nomination of Roots of Yoga

Your GA nomination of Trauma-sensitive yoga

Have a look at this

Your GA nomination of Isengard

Your GA nomination of Yoga as exercise

Template:Languages of Middle-earth

Your GA nomination of Vajroli mudra

Your GA nomination of Disruptive eye mask

Your GA nomination of Battle of Helm's Deep

Win Coll:

Your GA nomination of Disruptive eye mask

A barnstar for you

Your GA nomination of Battle of Helm's Deep

Your GA nomination of The Path of Modern Yoga

Your GA nomination of Moria (Middle-earth)

DYK for Scale insect

Your GA nomination of Postural yoga in India

Your GA nomination of Tom Bombadil

Your GA nomination of Moria (Middle-earth)

Your GA nomination of Gondor

Your GA nomination of Shire (Middle-earth)

Your GA nomination of Gondor

DYK for Cimicidae

Your GA nomination of Lotus position

Your GA nomination of Postural yoga in India

Your GA nomination of Shire (Middle-earth)

Leech

Your GA nomination of Lotus position

Your GA nomination of Shire (Middle-earth)

Your GA nomination of Yoga Makaranda

Template help

Your GA nomination of Tristimania

Your GA nomination of Indra Devi

Your GA nomination of Tristimania

Your GA nomination of Troll (Middle-earth)

Your GA nomination of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen

Your GA nomination of Mindful Yoga

Your GA nomination of Indra Devi

Your GA nomination of Yin Yoga

Your GA nomination of Gandalf

Your GA nomination of Gollum

Troll (Middle-earth)

Your GA nomination of Circle dance

Your GA nomination of Yoga as exercise

Your GA nomination of Bikram Choudhury

Your GA nomination of Orc

Move request at the Shire.

Your GA nomination of Frodo Baggins

Your GA nomination of Númenor

Your GA nomination of Orc

Your GA nomination of Númenor

Your GA nomination of Frodo Baggins

Your GA nomination of Standing asanas

Your GA nomination of Genetic assimilation

Your GA nomination of Standing asanas

Your GA nomination of Bikram Choudhury

Discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare

Your GA nomination of Éowyn

Your GA nomination of Watcher in the Water

Your GA nomination of Éowyn

FAC

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Pelennor Fields

Your GA nomination of Sacred dance

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Pelennor Fields

Your GA nomination of Pigs in culture

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Pelennor Fields

Your GA nomination of Troll (Middle-earth)

Your GA nomination of Sacred dance

thank you

Barnstar

Your GA nomination of Pigs in culture

Your GA nomination of Pest (organism)

Your GA nomination of Gríma Wormtongue

Tolkien's Middle-earth poetry

Your GA nomination of Pest (organism)

Better late than never

Your GA nomination of Gríma Wormtongue

Your GA nomination of Palantír

Fiction tense

Hi Chiswick Chap! I saw that you've been copyediting The Silmarillion and changing much of the plot to past tense. Please note that our general Manual of Style (MOS:TENSE) and our guide to writing better articles (WP:FICTENSE) recommend that we write in the present tense, especially for fictional plots. If you believe that this article should be written in past tense, I'd suggest bringing that to the Talk page before making sweeping changes. Woodroar (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Woodroar Thanks for asking. However, for many years, it has been policy on WP:WikiProject Middle-earth to use the past tense. It works well on the project and the present tense actually sounds really strange for things in the First Age. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's unusual, to say the least. Would you happen to have a link to that discussion? I see a redlink at WP:MeS and couldn't find an actual consensus anywhere else, more like 1-to-3 and 2-to-3 discussions. In addition, you may not be aware of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, a policy which has been upheld by ArbCom. Woodroar (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems someone's gone and deleted the portal along with all its discussions: I wish I could say I was surprised given the general shambles nowadays. The matter has been policy for over ten years and whenever it's been discussed it's been upheld. I certainly wouldn't wish to change it; what may be suitable for modernist literature would be a disaster with Tolkien. I understand the general recommendation but having seen several dozen Middle-earth articles through to GA, starting in a variety of interesting states, I can say with some feeling that the past tense seems to work well and naturally; and after all, a recommendation is just what it says: if there's good reason to do something different, we should. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as condescending. I guess I'm more surprised at the WikiProject's decision. We'll, I'll consider where (or if) to go with this. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very gracious. I actually think that present tense would work reasonably well on many of the articles; it would work worst (having seen how it looked) on the "deep past" articles that describe First Age or Second Age events; those about The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (Third Age) could tolerate simple present description. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect to change your mind on this, it just strikes me as unusual to make this exception for essentially in-universe reasons. We don't write Star Wars plots in the past tense (which fits "long time ago") or the future tense (which fits thematically), for example. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that it might feel better to write fictional historical content in the past tense, it just runs so counter to my own education and writing and editing. Anyways, again, I'm not trying to be condescending here, more...nonplussed. Woodroar (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Lúthien and Beren

A note about adding links to templates

Your GA nomination of Samwise Gamgee

Your GA nomination of Themes of The Lord of the Rings

Your GA nomination of Palantír

Your GA nomination of Samwise Gamgee

Fan art of Morgoth

Your GA nomination of Samwise Gamgee

Your GA nomination of Palantír

Your GA nomination of Bilbo Baggins

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Your GA nomination of Mirkwood

What was unclear?

Information about Hama

Your GA nomination of Mirkwood

Your GA nomination of Genetic assimilation

Your GA nomination of Mirkwood

Your GA nomination of Bilbo Baggins

Your GA nomination of Merry Brandybuck

Your GA nomination of Thorin Oakenshield

Your GA nomination of Nazgûl

Your GA nomination of Pippin Took

Your GA nomination of Nazgûl

Your GA nomination of Pippin Took

Your GA nomination of Boromir

Stegosaurus living uses?

Your GA nomination of Themes of The Lord of the Rings

FAC

Regional forms of shamanism

Your GA nomination of Bilbo Baggins

DYK for Pest (organism)

Your GA nomination of Legolas

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Your GA nomination of Legolas

Your GA nomination of Poetry in The Lord of the Rings

DYK for Jainism

Million Awards

Your GA nomination of Poetry in The Lord of the Rings

Notability

A barnstar for you!

MAUD Commitee

Your GA nomination of Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book

Your GA nomination of Radagast

Depth and poetry (and trees)

Strand-on-the-Green

I'd moved the flood image next to the paragraph that mentioned flooding, it only appears in the pub section because of how the page renders on certain sized screens, and on mobile it appears in the right place. In fact, a mobile user opening the Location but not History section will read about flooding without being shown a picture of it at all. Is Wikipedia policy to be platform-agnostic when placing images, or to account for where they might end up after being kicked around by infoboxes and other obstructrions?

Agree on the picturesque, I've walked it and it's a nice stretch of the river. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Image placement is always difficult. It seems unwise, however, to put an image in a short section that also has a gallery, as this is guaranteed not to work well on any non-phone platform. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The "Location and description" doesn't have a gallery, that's the "Historic local pubs" section. It's the infobox that's pushing the image down so that it looks like it's in the pub section. How about if the Historic pubs section was below (and/or inside) the History section, given that they all post-date 600BC? --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved the pubs. However the image remains placed much as it was, unless you're hoping to (tell it not in Gath) trash the overblown infobox, aka press the nuclear button. Edit wars and ArbCom adjudications have happened for less. I'd not go there ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't dream of it! We may as well move the flood photo back to "Location and description" at this point, though? The infobox would still kick it to more or less exactly where it is now in "History", on a computer screen (barely an inch upwards), while mobile viewers, API bots, long-future alien historians and whoever else would all see it in a sensible place above the "flooded at spring tides..." paragraph. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Future FACs

Scorpion/Scimitar

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Your GA nomination of Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book

Your GA nomination of Impression of depth in The Lord of the Rings

A barnstar for you!

Your GA nomination of Galadriel

Your GA nomination of Trees and forests in Middle-earth

Your GA nomination of Impression of depth in The Lord of the Rings

Collaboration invitation

Your GA nomination of Trees and forests in Middle-earth

Your GA nomination of Sauron

Cochineal

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Morannon

Mimicry by plants

Your GA nomination of Tolkien's artwork

Lek mating

Your GA nomination of Éomer

Scorpion

I'm still working on biology but for morphology, could you spotcheck all the cites to Polis? I'll replace the other cites when I get to it. Could you also spotcheck the evolution and distribution sections? LittleJerry (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

OK ... not sure that looking at all the citations is exactly "spot"-checking, but whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the online version we have is different than the physical hardcover which has 587 pages as opposed to 233. I'm guess the page numbers are from a Word document and the online pages can make more words than the original pages, also the cover is considered "page 1" and there are no table of contents. LittleJerry (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all the page numbers are wrong, likely for the reason you give; some parts are uncited (fixed some); and non-Polis refs are abysmally formatted, replacing with full journal/book citations. In short, we need to check and probably replace every single ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we want to continue, we may have to use Stuckmann as our backbone source and revert the Polis page numbers back. Does the text still accurately reflect the information in the book?

The ones I've tweaked are now correct, it took a bit of hunting to find them. I've marked some others as apparently wrong, not present in our edition at all - if they are in the other edition it must have been substantially revised. I don't see how we can decently revert unless we have sight of whatever edition it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be only one edition and the author died in 2000 so there won't be more. Can the new tweaks be correct if they reflect the online version and not the actual book? LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The new tweaks I just made are correct from the printed book, see for yourself. I've no idea how the old refs may have worked but wrt the printed book they are wrong, that's all I know. G'night. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh so you have access to the physical printed book? LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Um, you know exactly what I have, and I can read the page numbers as printed, as you can. Those are not the same as computer-assigned Kindle "pages"; Amazon may have scanned and digitised the text and repaginated it for Kindle, who knows. There have been different printings of the book. The 1990 edition seems to have been the first; there was a 1994 reprint and a 2007 facsimile. It is unclear whether the 2nd printing included any revision; the facsimile certainly didn't, but it might have been of the 2nd printing. The article text claims that scorpions are found as far North as Medicine Hat: I can't find that string in the text, so either the claim is false (maybe a later editor inserted that bit from some other source, perhaps something else that Polis wrote), or perhaps there is indeed a revised version, maybe the 1994 printing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, the Medicine Hat claim was added by an IP on 23 January 2014. Sigh. (I wonder how much other nonsense is in there.) I think there is only one Polis text, but presumably the Kindle version is repaginated. The printed pages numbers we can see are the real typeset pages, and numbers like p. 251 - beyond the end of the printed book - are pure Kindle-invention. I hope this is clear. The safe thing will be to check or replace all the text and all the refs with definitely-Polis-printed-page-numbers, or use new sources.Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should use new sources. I just ordered this book which has a chapter on scorpions. I think this and the Stockmann source would be enough to replace Polis. What do you think we should do in the meantime? LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want to use Polis (can't see why, he's extremely solid, and there's masses of good and relevant info in there), then we'd better wait for the other sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just confused about page numbers for Polis. You're saying the version we have is the real version and that others are using a Kindle version? I couldn't find a Kindle version on Amazon and the page numbers for the physical book are listed as 587, see here. So I'm a little confused. LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We certainly have the real one, and there have only been the reprints I mentioned, so if the other page numbers don't match, Kindle is the only explanation I can think of (short of outright error on some earlier editor's part). We have an authoritative source in our hands so let's use it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a physical copy of the book at a university library around an hour from were I live. I'll see if I can rent it or atleast ask for some page comparisons. LittleJerry (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I got the physical book for rent. As I expected, the pages are off so I'll have some work to do and then I'll have to ship it back. After that we'll have to use Stockmann and the new book I ordered as the backbone from now on. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Impression of Depth

Microbial communities

Your GA nomination of Named weapons in Middle-earth

IP making rapid taxonomy edits

Your GA nomination of Baldwin effect

Your GA nomination of Mordor

Thoughts on Maximum Genetic Diversity

Your GA nomination of Elf (Middle-earth)

Alaric Hall

This is an interesting find (not aware of his work previously). Hall is mentioned in lots of sources in Wikipedia articles (see here) and the Alaric Hall in the election results is him as well. His personal website is used twice on Wikipedia (see here). I came across this while looking at Character pairing in The Lord of the Rings, but I wonder if there is more material there that can be used? Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I also completely failed to realise he edits Wikipedia. I am really only popping in (as is my wont, even with a pandemic on), so I won't ping him and leave it up to you if you think it appropriate or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Alarichall, I see (hi!). Well, maybe he'll be amused, maybe he'll lend a hand, let's hope so! Alaric, if you see this, Carcharoth is alluding to my lockdown work on the Middle-earth project, where I've tried to bring a bit of scholarship, or at least notability with reliable non-Tolkien sources, to the subject, and some coverage of the sorts of topics that scholars have actually been interested in, rather than the Tolkien Gateway-style fan-wiki that it was before. So far I've added some 45 Good Articles to the project so on one metric it's certainly improved. The immediate question would be 'What are the most glaring gaps in the coverage?' – but I'd be delighted to hear of any issues that you think need attention. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the Tolkien Gateway wiki has some very useful pages on non-'in-universe' topics, if you know what I mean. And it is very good for in-universe style if that is what you like (and lots of people do like exploring the topic that way). The way you have churned through the topic area in lockdown is nothing short of amazing. I have some notes on some of the articles, and some potential sources to add in some places, but those notes will either get dumped on a relevant talk page if I really can't find the time, or I will get to it later in the year. It is certainly easier to add to the articles when they are on such a solid foundation. Not sure if Alaric is reading this, but if he is, I got as far as looking at his PhD thesis: The Meanings of Elf, and Elves, in Medieval England, and looking for the citations to Tolkien, which include Ides ælfscýne that was published in Songs for the Philologists... :-) I should, in fairness, point out that the thesis I linked to has been superseded by the publication of Elves in Anglo-Saxon England: Matters of Belief, Health, Gender and Identity, especially as several of the reviewers also publish in the area of Tolkien studies. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Bat

Your GA nomination of J. R. R. Tolkien's influences

The IP you warned

Your GA nomination of J. R. R. Tolkien's influences

Scorpion

Could you work on taxonomy and evolution? It seems rather meager. Here's a large paper here. I'm also not a fan of the white spaces. Wonder if we could use a chart for the families like bat has. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see this - camouflaged by many other threads below, with active pings, leaving this overlooked. The spaces cost nothing and make editing easier, again, not camouflaging the images amidst dense text. I've already used and cited the 'large paper' ([17]) in the Evolution section, and there's already a phylogenetic tree in Phylogeny, too, which shows the not-too-controversial arrangement of the orders. The Bat table takes up an enormous amount of space (and lots of whitespace, too) for relatively little information; it seems very inferior to a tree for this sort of thing; the tree already contains images of subgroups. I'll see if the tree can safely be extended. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's another paper you could use. It includes a cladogram of scorpions among the Chelicerata. You could just reconstruct the pulmonate arachninds. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

External relationships: good idea. That was the same 'large paper' (Howard), btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could give descriptions of the different families like in starfish. If you cite Polis, I'll make the page corrections but I plan on mailing it back this week. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd have thought that inappropriate and repetitive; the article is about the group. We got away with describing the Orders in Starfish as there are only a few of them and they're radically different in appearance, neither of which is true here. The deeper problem is that the "Chactoidea" and the "Iuroidea" are paraphyletic, so the "Taxonomy" agrees poorly with the actual phylogeny; I think we should pass over the "Taxonomy" as briefly as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I just mailed back the Polis books so no more cites. LittleJerry (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the "Middle Eastern culture" section should be renamed "Mythology" and include things from other cultures like Greece and Rome. The current "Western culture" section focuses on things named after or inspired by scorpion and should be renamed as well. LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's try that then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we're almost to GA. Could you cleanup and expand the lead paragraphs? LittleJerry (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we're almost to FA. I'll look over the lead, then you can have a go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I we'll need to look at the other sources to see if they are accurately cited. I think "Morphology" and "Biology" are ok but I'll look them over this week. I think the two venom subsections will be the ones we'll need to look at. After that we can submit to GA. LittleJerry (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

ok, I thought you'd been through those sections. The venom material is subject to WP:MEDRS and needs to comply with that policy to the letter - anything that even sounds like a claim to be a treatment must be supported by a systematic review source. Here is a review article by Ahmadi et al 2020. I've used it to rewrite the section reliably - no primary sources for medical claims, and perhaps it's a bit clearer as well. I think I've said most of what needs saying at this level; it's a complicated, technical, and rapidly-changing topic, and the previous text was patchy, over-ambitious, and uneven. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright what about the "stings" section? Morphology, biology and geography should be good now. LittleJerry (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's now free of HOWTO ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I nominated it. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Just in case

TFL notification

/* Mediterranean cuisine */

Your GA nomination of The Lord of the Rings

The ship graphic used in your "Downfall of Númenor" image

In your graphic "Downfall of Númenor" you used a certain image^† of a sailing ship to represent the ships which "sail to Aman" and "sail 'The Straight Road'". The ship in that image is typical of the sailing ships used in the 18th and 19th centuries of our own World History. In the Tolkien Middle-world mythos, such ships were never used, and instead their ships probably more closely resembled a ship such as this one from around the 7th century AD.

^†I apologize, as I am ignorant of how to wikilink to a Wikipedia graphic file's Wikipedia page, without having the graphic itself appear; the link immediately following your image's title links to the graphic's Wikipedia page, although the link is in the format of an external link (also, please be aware that the second link in that paragraph is an external link, as its form indicates; that link leads to an image of a ship, and the link's target destination should be legitimate and internet-safe)

The ship you depict is a product of technology that is about a thousand years more advanced than the technology used in the world of Tolkien's Middle-earth (although the principles of ship design had evolved relatively slowly, over that duration of time). Since you have good graphic design skills, I conclude that you intentionally chose an incongruous sailing vessel, perhaps for the sake of being humorous. I respect your choice, whatever reasoning led you to it, but I am moved to ask you to share your reasons for making such an odd selection. I make this request while maintaining the utmost respect for your abilities, and for your self, and with full appreciation for your contributions to Wikipedia. What motivates me is the need to learn the explanation for something unexpected, albeit informed by the outside possibility that you might consider replacing the currently-depicted ship with a ship that more-closely matches Tolkien's vision. catsmoke (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh my. OK, I'll put an older era ship in there, since you think it worth writing 2kBytes all over my talk page about it. (Don't make a habit of that, though.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User page

Lek and Swedish

Editor of the Week

Your GA nomination of Aragorn

A barnstar for you!

Bat

Your GA nomination of Aragorn

Bat on the front page

50 Tolkien GAs

Vagility and Motility

Your GA nomination of Women in The Lord of the Rings

Cladogram

Your GA nomination of Lek mating

A present for you!

Your GA nomination of Wizards (Middle-earth)

Your GA nomination of Women in The Lord of the Rings

Your GA nomination of Wizards (Middle-earth)

Your GA nomination of Women in The Lord of the Rings

Your GA nomination of Hobbit

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rebecca Jackson Mendoza as Galadriel Toronto 2006.jpg

Your GA nomination of Hobbit

Leech scheduled for TFA

Scale insects

Your GA nomination of The Story of Yoga

Your GA nomination of One Ring

Happy First Edit Day!

Fitness (biology) in need of improvements

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

Oxonmoot

Scorpion

Middle Earth

Scorpion FA

I'm just making sure beaver is on the right track. Then we can nominate scorpion. LittleJerry (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think we need to get some more checking done, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What checking? LittleJerry (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That all the citations are in order, especially. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

In terms of formatting? LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

For instance. S/o has added a claim prob. to their own paper... Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I had Jonesey95 cleanup the references. Do you think we're ready? LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

~~I'll nominate soon then. When I get one more support for beaver. LittleJerry (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)~~

Nevermind, I did it anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Scorpion Files gives 22 families and 2557 species. I don't know were to fit them in the superfamilies. LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

We need a recent source that relates them. SF seems to be 2003 and we clearly need something between order and families here, not necessarily superfamilies. Suborders would do probably. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I added some more bits of information using Stockmann and Ythier. You think it'll be enough? LittleJerry (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

LittleJerry Impossible to say, but it's certainly along the right lines. I'm thinking about adding a diagram of venom squirting in Parabuthus and Hadrurus based on page 90 (I'll make an infographic with photo from Commons), so maybe you could add a sentence or two with ref from there while I do the drawing. Another thing we could mention might be the "arbre droit" when 2 scorpions do a sort of mating dance on page 128. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Maybe you also add some information on scorpion control from pages 163-164. It could be added to "Effect of sting" and renamed "Danger". LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Any more things you think need adding? LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't need to remove my comment. Femke Nijsse actually thank me for it. Its okay to disagree with a reviewer on some things. I removed "close relative of spiders" since its not needed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, you know my view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The card labels it "Scorpio" and reviewers are going to note the inconsistent use of "Scorpio" and "Scorpius". LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't change the name of the constellation, which is widely agreed amongst astronomers. We can label the cards as we like, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well its passed FAC! Would you be able to work with me on turtle in 2021? LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, why not. Happy Christmas! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

For now though, could you please do a copyedit for beaver? Is at the end of FAC and I'm suddenly got prose and MOS complaints. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Chair Yoga

Chriswick Chap. Thank you for opening up the discussion to make the chair yoga info accurate. To be accurate, was the edit to correct that one yoga teacher founded or “invented” chair yoga let alone in 1982 is simply not correct, not only because yes as I stated, people with disabilities and injuries or illness were doing yoga in wheelchairs or chairs long before that which was technically a term chair yoga, that’s as in fact chair yoga, also there still were other teachers such as Lilias Folan in PBS and in her books and many others who are teaching “chair yoga” and calling it that, and other teachers at taught it at integral yoga ashrams around the world, long before 1982 reference of one teacher starting it. Just as you can’t state that one teacher started yoga in general it’s not accurate to say one person start a chair yoga because it’s simply not true. I just want it to be accurate. Thanks for the update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:302:30B0:A6:CEA3:2328:1F61 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

2601, many thanks for joining the discussion, which has always been open. (I'll probably move this to the article's talk page later as others may wish to join in.) The point is, as you actually conceded in one of your first edit comments, is that yoga-done-with-chairs is not the same as Voelker's "Chair Yoga", and she was certainly the person who first practised and taught it under that name. The article already mentions Iyengar Yoga and nobody doubts that other schools of yoga also sometimes used chairs, even if documentary proof of that is not readily available (and I have a whole shelf of yoga books beside me). I'm familiar with Folan's work but have found no evidence that she called her practice "Chair Yoga"; I believe she simply used a chair as a prop from time to time. I'm glad you want to improve Wikipedia; the mechanism for doing so is however to locate reliable sources, such as textbooks, academic journal papers, and reports in major newspapers and magazines, which other editors can verify: we can't go on hearsay or personal belief. I do hope that's clear, as I've been repeating the point in various ways to a variety of Internet addresses over the past few days. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

		The Tolkien Barnstar
		I don't often give out barnstars, but this is more than well deserved. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

		The Tolkien Barnstar
		For bringing a large number of Tolkien-related articles up to GA-status.

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Gollum (estimated annual readership: 560,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Gandalf (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Tom Bombadil (estimated annual readership: 315,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Frodo Baggins (estimated annual readership: 264,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Nazgûl (estimated annual readership: 258,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For diligent work on Arab Agricultural Revolution. It's a really useful article and clearly reflects the work of several editors over time. A nice example of Wikipedia working as it should! Alarichall (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	291 Good Articles... Wow. Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your outstanding contributions. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for all your hard work on wiki coverage of Tolkien and his work; it does not go unnoticed! Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Water pot, Acoma Pueblo, c. 1889-1903, earthenware decorated with slip	Happy New Year!
	Hi Chiswick Chap, May your 2021 be abundant, joyful and healthy. Thank you for helping out with the Black-on-black ware article, I appreciate it! Netherzone (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)