Tolkien Index talk:About

From Tolkien Index
Jump to: navigation, search

I think all this stuff should be at Tolkien Index:About. What do you reckon? --KingAragorn 18:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes. — Mithrennaith 23:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Right now the Tolkien Index:About redirects here, so either way is fine for me. ;-) Is it possible to remove the Help-link in the left bar? --Morgan 14:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
All done. :) --KingAragorn 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, KA! --Morgan 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviations

I always wonder why people keep formulating new abbreviation lists, always slightly different from the existing ones. Since I found out about Arda Structural Reference Format I’ve never seen a need to set up a different abbreviation list from the one included there (P.S. there is a more up to date version of that one in Arda Philology #2, I think). — Mithrennaith 23:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Mithrennaith. However, I wonder in what way the abbrevations (so far) used here at the Tolkien Index differ from those suggested by the ASRF? From what I can see at Forodrim's website, the only one which is obviously different would be The Lost Road and Other Writings (where I've used LR so far, and ASRF suggests LRW). Having the volume number of the HoMe series in parenthesis is quite useful I would say, since this is the only way they occur in the HoMe Index. LRW is indeed a good suggestion, since LR is likely to be mistaken for The Lord of the Rings. Then there's always the question if abbreviations are needed on a website, with basically unlimited information space... --Morgan 14:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I came back here, because I thought I had been too gruff and negative. And when I returned to the Arda pages I realised the same thing you are also saying, the only difference is in ‘LRW’ (and no, I don’t object to the volume numbers). And yes, that’s what sparked me off, precisely for the reason you’re giving: risk of mistake. It also points out the only thing on which I disagree with Beregond, that is using ‘LR’ for Lord of the Rings; I always use LotR, except when I’m using ASRF. And, outside ASRF, ‘Hob’ and ‘Sil’ are usually understood more easily than ‘H’ and ‘S’. But, when I want to be precise and use ASRF, I use its abreviations also. What I’m shaking my head over, is the drawing up of so many different standards, where one should do, especially if it has been so carefully drawn up as Arda’s. So I thought it better to try to avoid drawing up yet another standard, while we still can. But the problem with ASRF and its list of abbreviations is that its web page is so outdated, there is rather more than is written there, and to be a viable working standard, it should all be in one place. And yes, we can also doubt the need of abbreviations on a website — on TG the citation templates are there to make it easy to avoid abbreviations, and we can use the same approach here. But abbreviations can be very useful when talking among ourselves.
Oh well, the only thing I really wanted to say is that I think it is still worthwile to take some care over abbreviations, and try to follow and complement an existing standard of good standing. Sorry to have been pig-headed about it, there was no need for that. — Mithrennaith 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I probably won’t be back in here, or much about the ’net, for the next two weeks or so — first a long weekend fantasy trade fair and then off to Omentielva. — ‹M›
If you remember, please say hello to Beregond from me at Omentielva! :-) --Morgan 04:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)