Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Orodreth

(Difference between revisions)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
There was nothing factually wrong in it. And it's completely arbitrary to use as main source the later notes, giving a version of the story that wasn't introduced in any narrative and it's pretty much obscure. Not to mention the confusion for readers.
 
There was nothing factually wrong in it. And it's completely arbitrary to use as main source the later notes, giving a version of the story that wasn't introduced in any narrative and it's pretty much obscure. Not to mention the confusion for readers.
 
Following the same logic, you should change as well the article about Finrod Felagund and state that he was married, because that's what the last notes on the matter say (HoME vol. XII: "On Dwarves and Men", "The Shibboleth of Fëanor"), even when this contradicts everything that is said in the main narratives.
 
Following the same logic, you should change as well the article about Finrod Felagund and state that he was married, because that's what the last notes on the matter say (HoME vol. XII: "On Dwarves and Men", "The Shibboleth of Fëanor"), even when this contradicts everything that is said in the main narratives.
The question is, why is given preference to quickly written notes (that we don't even know if were definitive or not) over the big bulk of narratives that is extant? That would require that all references to the making of the Sun and the Moon are removed as well from the articles, because that's what the last notes on the matter say. But what's the point of talking about the stories that "could" have been, but never were? We would be talking about a fictional book that was never written.
+
The question is, why is given preference to quickly written notes (that we don't even know if were definitive or not) over the big bulk of narratives that is extant? That would require that all references to the making of the Sun and the Moon are removed as well from the articles, because that's what the last notes on the matter say. But what's the point of talking about the stories that "could" have been, but never were? We would be talking about a fictional book that was never written. {{unsigned|95.22.94.140 }}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:It was reverted because the intro that does not comply with [[Tolkien Gateway:Manual of Style|the Manual of Style]]. That you left a link to "Elf (Middle-earth)" in there is a dead giveaway you just copied if off wikipedia . Also, no not mess with headers. It may need a rewrite to comply with our new ideas towards canon, but that doesn't mean we have to accept everything that's added. --{{User:Ederchil/sig}} 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:38, 4 April 2013

Move

Move to Orodreth? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And before you start asking, Finduilas of Nargothrond too. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Silmarillion vs. Late notes

Why was my revision, which placed the genealogy from Silmarillion above the later one, removed? There was nothing factually wrong in it. And it's completely arbitrary to use as main source the later notes, giving a version of the story that wasn't introduced in any narrative and it's pretty much obscure. Not to mention the confusion for readers. Following the same logic, you should change as well the article about Finrod Felagund and state that he was married, because that's what the last notes on the matter say (HoME vol. XII: "On Dwarves and Men", "The Shibboleth of Fëanor"), even when this contradicts everything that is said in the main narratives. The question is, why is given preference to quickly written notes (that we don't even know if were definitive or not) over the big bulk of narratives that is extant? That would require that all references to the making of the Sun and the Moon are removed as well from the articles, because that's what the last notes on the matter say. But what's the point of talking about the stories that "could" have been, but never were? We would be talking about a fictional book that was never written. Unsigned comment by 95.22.94.140 (talk • contribs).


It was reverted because the intro that does not comply with the Manual of Style. That you left a link to "Elf (Middle-earth)" in there is a dead giveaway you just copied if off wikipedia . Also, no not mess with headers. It may need a rewrite to comply with our new ideas towards canon, but that doesn't mean we have to accept everything that's added. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)