Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Aragorn

(Difference between revisions)
m (just a start...)
 
m (Titles box: typo)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
It took some poking and trying, but this looks like a good link page.
+
Especially after looking at the review on the Yrch website, I would like to suggest again that we automatically direct to the primary character of a certain name with a note at the top to reach a disambiguation page for the others, like is done in Wikipedia.  So anyone searching for Aragorn would go automatically to Aragorn II.  I know that last time this was brought up it was decided against, but I would like to renew the suggestion now. --[[User:Narfil Palùrfalas|Narfil Palùrfalas]] 20:30, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:We seem to be fairly stubborn (in a good way) about our stance on this issue. Unfortunately it seems to be fairly even sides and I think we will just have to wait until more contributors with opinions on the matter come along. I'm willing to be swayed but at present I still believe treating characters and articles equally is a better approach.
 +
 
 +
:When I see someone searching for Aragorn I see fans who aren't aware that Aragorn of the Fellowship is really the second, thus they learn new information. Then I see the scholars looking for information on the first Aragorn, and they are able to locate it more quickly than being redirected to an article they don't wish to be at, and having to click yet another link to find what they are looking for.  
 +
 
 +
:Which reminds me, this article should contain information on not only what ''Aragorn'' means in other langauges, but how [[J.R.R. Tolkien]] derived it. --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 22:39, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::I agree with Hyarion on no automatic redirects. Major characters are in '''bold''', so the uneducated user should be able to find what they are looking for without any problems. --[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]] 23:14, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Titles box ==
 +
 
 +
I have several issues with the information in the box in the titles section.
 +
# The [[House of Telcontar]] is not a cadet branch of the [[House of Isildur]], for cadet means junior in the sense that there is a senior branch in existence simultaneously, at least in the beginning. The House of Isildur is, however, in the quite unusual position that the senior branch has always continued, no junior branch ever taking over as new senior branch, and the House of Telcontar is merely the continuation of that one senior branch.
 +
# The box suggests that the [[Fellowship of the Ring]] ended on 16 February, T.A. 3019, or at the very least that it became leaderless at that point. Yet the article on the Fellowship itself correctly states that it was only broken, not disbanded on '''2'''6 February, T.A. 3019, being disbanded by King Elessar in the chapter ''Many Partings'' at Isengard (that being on 22 August, T.A. 3019). This clearly implies Aragorn was up to that time still, or again, its leader.
 +
# ‘House of Telcontar’ is used as a title, which it isn’t, the title should be ‘Head of the House of Telcontar’.
 +
I think all these are errors that should be corrected. — [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 01:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 +
: I agree with you at point 2 and 3. But I don't really understand what you mean with point 1. --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 +
::The House of Telcontar cannot be a cadet branch of the House of Isildur, because there never was any branch of the House of Isildur senior to it. It never split off from the House of Isildur, it is the continuation of the most senior branch the House of Isildur ever had. — [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::I’ve got two further points:
 +
::::4. The previous [[Kings of Arnor|King of Arnor]] was not [[Arvedui]], 1046 (actually 1044) years earlier, but [[Eärendur (King of Arnor)|Eärendur]], 2158 years earlier.<br>5. As the vacancy of the northern kingship since Arvedui, the vacancy of the kingship of Gondor since [[Eärnur]] has been miscalculated as if Aragorn commenced his rule in 3021 instead of 3019: it should be 969 years, instead of 971.
 +
:::— [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::Feel free to change all of these! The information in the current box I just copied from the previous one without thought. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 10:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::If I remember good then the descendents of [[Argeleb I]] claimed to be the King of Arnor. --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]]
 +
 
 +
::::::It's a common misconception (often peddled by editors of this site), but they ''claimed'' to be Kings of Arnor, but were still Kings of Arthedain. In Appendix A it lists them as "Kings of Arthedain", and not Arnor. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::But [[Arthedain]] and [[Cardolan]] accepted it, and [[Rhudaur]] was destroyed. --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]]
 +
::::::::And still, in all lists, as in [[Appendix A]] I ii and in [[The Heirs of Elendil]], they are listed as "Kings of Arthedain".
 +
::::::::I think I will change these points. I’m just wondering where else ‘cadet branch’ may have been misused (think I saw another case pass by when I was on a ramble checking life-spans of Dúnadan Kings). — [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 19:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:12, 9 September 2010

Especially after looking at the review on the Yrch website, I would like to suggest again that we automatically direct to the primary character of a certain name with a note at the top to reach a disambiguation page for the others, like is done in Wikipedia. So anyone searching for Aragorn would go automatically to Aragorn II. I know that last time this was brought up it was decided against, but I would like to renew the suggestion now. --Narfil Palùrfalas 20:30, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

We seem to be fairly stubborn (in a good way) about our stance on this issue. Unfortunately it seems to be fairly even sides and I think we will just have to wait until more contributors with opinions on the matter come along. I'm willing to be swayed but at present I still believe treating characters and articles equally is a better approach.
When I see someone searching for Aragorn I see fans who aren't aware that Aragorn of the Fellowship is really the second, thus they learn new information. Then I see the scholars looking for information on the first Aragorn, and they are able to locate it more quickly than being redirected to an article they don't wish to be at, and having to click yet another link to find what they are looking for.
Which reminds me, this article should contain information on not only what Aragorn means in other langauges, but how J.R.R. Tolkien derived it. --Hyarion 22:39, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
I agree with Hyarion on no automatic redirects. Major characters are in bold, so the uneducated user should be able to find what they are looking for without any problems. --Ebakunin 23:14, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Titles box

I have several issues with the information in the box in the titles section.

  1. The House of Telcontar is not a cadet branch of the House of Isildur, for cadet means junior in the sense that there is a senior branch in existence simultaneously, at least in the beginning. The House of Isildur is, however, in the quite unusual position that the senior branch has always continued, no junior branch ever taking over as new senior branch, and the House of Telcontar is merely the continuation of that one senior branch.
  2. The box suggests that the Fellowship of the Ring ended on 16 February, T.A. 3019, or at the very least that it became leaderless at that point. Yet the article on the Fellowship itself correctly states that it was only broken, not disbanded on 26 February, T.A. 3019, being disbanded by King Elessar in the chapter Many Partings at Isengard (that being on 22 August, T.A. 3019). This clearly implies Aragorn was up to that time still, or again, its leader.
  3. ‘House of Telcontar’ is used as a title, which it isn’t, the title should be ‘Head of the House of Telcontar’.

I think all these are errors that should be corrected. — Mithrennaith 01:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you at point 2 and 3. But I don't really understand what you mean with point 1. --Amroth 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The House of Telcontar cannot be a cadet branch of the House of Isildur, because there never was any branch of the House of Isildur senior to it. It never split off from the House of Isildur, it is the continuation of the most senior branch the House of Isildur ever had. — Mithrennaith 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I’ve got two further points:
4. The previous King of Arnor was not Arvedui, 1046 (actually 1044) years earlier, but Eärendur, 2158 years earlier.
5. As the vacancy of the northern kingship since Arvedui, the vacancy of the kingship of Gondor since Eärnur has been miscalculated as if Aragorn commenced his rule in 3021 instead of 3019: it should be 969 years, instead of 971.
Mithrennaith 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to change all of these! The information in the current box I just copied from the previous one without thought. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If I remember good then the descendents of Argeleb I claimed to be the King of Arnor. --Amroth
It's a common misconception (often peddled by editors of this site), but they claimed to be Kings of Arnor, but were still Kings of Arthedain. In Appendix A it lists them as "Kings of Arthedain", and not Arnor. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
But Arthedain and Cardolan accepted it, and Rhudaur was destroyed. --Amroth
And still, in all lists, as in Appendix A I ii and in The Heirs of Elendil, they are listed as "Kings of Arthedain".
I think I will change these points. I’m just wondering where else ‘cadet branch’ may have been misused (think I saw another case pass by when I was on a ramble checking life-spans of Dúnadan Kings). — Mithrennaith 19:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)