Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Gandalf

(Difference between revisions)
m (Redirected names)
(Redirected names)
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 86: Line 86:
 
:::::::::::+1 to KingAragorn's idea.  
 
:::::::::::+1 to KingAragorn's idea.  
 
:::::::::::If I want to search for some information about Láthspell, I'm redirected to Gandalf. I then have to scroll down the whole page to Names, and see the information isn't on this page but on [[Gandalf/Names]]. And then have to scroll down another page, untill I finally reach the correct header.  --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::If I want to search for some information about Láthspell, I'm redirected to Gandalf. I then have to scroll down the whole page to Names, and see the information isn't on this page but on [[Gandalf/Names]]. And then have to scroll down another page, untill I finally reach the correct header.  --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::::::::::This is why I don't like subpages, there are too many unnecessary headaches. The uppercase/lowercase discussion was about categories (something I now think was a good idea), not subpage names. This all seems like an appropriate discussion for a meeting.--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 16:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::::::::::::I have an idea: how about having individual articles for Elvish (or other special) names instead? On these pages we could have only linguistic information and give a clear link to the main article. :P --[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 17:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::::::::::::Yeah, we should have independant articles for Elvish names. --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::::::::::::::We have actually decided that having separate articles is exactly what we shouldn't be doing, after years of gradually moving in that direction. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 17:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::::::::::::::A decision that surely can be changed, if we find that it's not so easy to implement. Sometimes I'm thinking that we should solve the separation of articles from case to case: for some concepts it's useful to have it all on one page. But in other cases (as for Gandalf, with so many names), it seems more useful (that is, better for the wiki reader) to have separate articles. As Amroth says, someone searching for Tharkun will, I'd guess, in 95% of all cases want to know more about just this name (finding references, meaning, etymology, etc), and not be redirected to a general article about Gandalf.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 18:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
I like the use of a scrollable DIV for [[Tom Shippey#Bibliography|Tom Shippey's bibliography]]. Could something similar be used for the Names section on this article?--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:43, 2 January 2012

I started a powers and abilities section, since we already have one for Saruman. It could probably use review and expansion. --Ted C 13:24, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

Contents

Narya

I think it is likely that Gandalf gained his power over fire when he got Narya, the elven ring. Remember that it was called the Ring of Fire?

I doubt it. Remember that the Istari were not to use their powers to dominate. Gandalf seemed to have no power over fire ("I cannot burn snow"), though he implemented it. I believe that the words of Círdan tell us the most:
". . . For this is the Ring of Fire, and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill. . ."
Appendix B
Therefore I believe we can assume that the Ring was used to strengthen his purpose: to "kindle the hearts", even as he did to Théoden. There was an interesting thread in the Barrow-downs discussion forum about this very point, but I can't remember where it is. I'll post a link if I can. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:05, 15 December 2006 (EST)

But isn't said elsewhere that he could only show so much of his power to certain people? Which is why the hobbits of the Shire only knew Gandalf as a master of fireworks? --Quidon88 13:11, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Fireworks are not neccessarily a result of "magical" power over fire. They knew Gandalf "only" as a wandering conjurer and master of fireworks. This is the least of his art. I can't find a quote as I don't have the Letters with me (at the library, alas), but it does say he could only show his full power in greatest need, and then only in defense (as he did with Durin's Bane and the Witch-king). The other elven rings were used to preserve and protect their realms; they had no offensive capabilities so far as we know. I see no reason to assume anything else that it was for except what Círdan said: to kindle people's hearts against Sauron, which was the mission of the Istari in the first place. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:24, 15 December 2006 (EST)

"only show his full power in greatest need". That was what I was getting at, I just couldn't get the thoughts to words, thanks.--Quidon88 13:42, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Editing Article

I've been working my way through this article trying to clean it up and make it more of an 'encyclopedic' entry. Please let me know if I slash too much.

Much of this article is very poorly written and the text continually diverges from the subject matter into minutiae and tangential issues.

Anyway... let me know if I'm making it better or worse.

Glorfindel Mk. II 16:53, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry about it. Change as much as you like. This article was a rewrite done by myself alone. In other words, no-one has really edited it and filled it out. I personally thought that the information about Sauron's movements was very relevant, but I really shouldn't be the one to comment on it. Most of our main editors are absent for some reason or another, but they'll probably give you some input when they come back. --Narfil Palùrfalas 19:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I'm new here but very knowledgeable about Tolkien's works and letters. I'm trying to delete extraneous information. It seems to me that if the encyclopedic aspect of this site is to succeed then articles need to be rather specific to their subject. Of course I could be totally wrong... Thanks for the input.Glorfindel Mk. II 22:29, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Crusade Against Sauron

This section title is totally inappropriate as the section deals with preparations and early skirmishes between the council and Sauron. I changed it to 'Preparing for War' although there are probably better titles.

There were battles earlier in the Third Age and in the Second Age that could be better termed 'Crusades against Sauron' but certainly not this interim period prior to the war of the Ring.

Thoughts?

Glorfindel Mk. II 18:38, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

The title "Crusade against Sauron" was used because I couldn't think of anything better. It was Gandalf's ongoing vigilance against the Enemy; his crusade. Doubtless there are better titles, but I cannot think of any at the moment. "Vigilance against Sauron", perhaps? --Narfil Palùrfalas 19:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
O.k. now I see where you are coming from. My POV is that 'crusade' has a specific meaning derived from the 'crusades' of the middle ages and those were organized (well semi-organized) endeavors involving thousands of people. Thus the Numenorian army that Sauron surrendered to was a 'crusading' army and I suppose the 'Last Alliance' could also be called a 'crusade.' I changed it already as it prefaces the central 'War of the Ring' section. BTW, I think 'Early Vigilance' is perfect. I like the flow of 'early vigilance,' 'preparing for the war,' and 'the war.' Feel free to change back; we can take a vote later when the other primary editors return. Glorfindel Mk. II 22:34, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Olórin

Perhaps make a separate section for "Olórin in Valinor"? I recently noted this draft by JRRT and the following statement by CT:

"'He was humble in the Land of the Blessed; and in Middle-earth he sought no renown. His triumph was in the uprising of the fallen, and his joy was in the renewal of hope.' This appears in Vq 2, but my father subsequently placed inverted commas round it. It was wrongly omitted from The Silmarillion."

If others agree, I (or someone else) could surely have enough info to write such a section ("The later Quenta Silmarillion has some other goodies on Olórin in Valinor, but I'm not sure if everything can be considered "canon" straight off). (HoMe 10) --Morgan 22:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

This page is too big to edit. I'd like to request that {{Featurednominations}} is removed. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  13:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Strangely my edit worked, although when I clicked save I was presented with a blank page and presumed that the save had failed. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  17:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirected names

So, what do you all think? Since many of the articles on Gandalf's various names are quite intricate, how do we most simply keep all good information in this article? While merging Láthspell, I tried instead to add all the headings from the first article under the section "Láthspell", but it doesn't look very good (and it's confusing for the reader). Should we make a Gandalf subpage (Gandalf/Names), which deals with all his names? --Morgan 21:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants an example of what such a subpage could look like, we have done something similar on Tom Bombadil/nature.--Morgan 22:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like sub pages, but we may have to go for a Gandalf/Names page.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  12:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't like subpages either. --Amroth 14:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to be annoying, I do like subpages and I think we should make greater use of them. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
So, what should be the name of the this subpage - Gandalf/names or Gandalf/Names, or something completely different? --Morgan 18:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Gandalf/names looks ugly (as does Tom Bombadil/nature, incidentally). I would prefer Gandalf/Names.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  18:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's not go into upper/lowercase again! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 08:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
OK then, let's just use uppercase.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
So, should we redirect Olórin, Mithrandir, Incánus, Tharkûn, The White Rider, Gandalf Greyhame, Stormcrow and Láthspell to Gandalf/Names? --Morgan 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
To the appropriate headers of Gandalf/Names, yes.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, you don't get to decide on the upper/lowercase thing. What I was referring to was that actually the editors leant towards lowercase when we last talked about it and I didn't think it was worth having that discussion again.
Secondly, no they shouldn't redirect to the subpage. And nor should they be linking to the "Names"/"Other names"/"Other names for X" either. Because that's annoying. And a manifesto for disaster. We should be listing the other names in the opening paragraph and then redirecting to the page as normal. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
+1 to KingAragorn's idea.
If I want to search for some information about Láthspell, I'm redirected to Gandalf. I then have to scroll down the whole page to Names, and see the information isn't on this page but on Gandalf/Names. And then have to scroll down another page, untill I finally reach the correct header. --Amroth 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is why I don't like subpages, there are too many unnecessary headaches. The uppercase/lowercase discussion was about categories (something I now think was a good idea), not subpage names. This all seems like an appropriate discussion for a meeting.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  16:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have an idea: how about having individual articles for Elvish (or other special) names instead? On these pages we could have only linguistic information and give a clear link to the main article. :P --Morgan 17:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we should have independant articles for Elvish names. --Amroth 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
We have actually decided that having separate articles is exactly what we shouldn't be doing, after years of gradually moving in that direction. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
A decision that surely can be changed, if we find that it's not so easy to implement. Sometimes I'm thinking that we should solve the separation of articles from case to case: for some concepts it's useful to have it all on one page. But in other cases (as for Gandalf, with so many names), it seems more useful (that is, better for the wiki reader) to have separate articles. As Amroth says, someone searching for Tharkun will, I'd guess, in 95% of all cases want to know more about just this name (finding references, meaning, etymology, etc), and not be redirected to a general article about Gandalf.--Morgan 18:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the use of a scrollable DIV for Tom Shippey's bibliography. Could something similar be used for the Names section on this article?-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)