Experimental Timeline: Timeline-temp
There are two of the year 471! [Just copy 'n pasted from Halion's Excel file "Tale of Years" I guess ;)]
Isn't Saelind (born 344) the same person as Andreth (born 361)? [Couldn't find the both of them in the Indices of the Silm or UT. btw.]
I had an idea that I wanted to make sure it was fine before I did it. Many of the dates are disputed. Perhaps an asterisk could be added to those ones? --Narfil Palùrfalas 21:50, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
- Great idea! Maybe later we can delve in deeper as to the range and other possibilities for the date but I think an asterisk would be a great addition to let people know its not an exact fact. --Hyarion 22:07, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
A More Accurate Timeline?
- Fine by me, although maybe we could make a quick run through to make sure they didn't leave anything out that we already have, otherwise it looks great. I'm not sure copying it entirely would be the most legal thing either, maybe we can rewrite it in our own words. --Hyarion 09:26, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
Fourth Age years?
Perhaps I'm just bad in numbers, but it seems to me that to many of the years of the F.A. are not correct.
According to the Tale of Years (p. 1098 in my 2004 edition) king Elessar died in S.R. 1541 which was the year 120 of the Fourth Age (Gondor) - see footnote 1. Thus one should retract 1421 from the S.R. years to get the F.A. years. Am I right? This would cause changes to all the years that are changed from the S.R. to the F.A. years (1 > T.A. 3021, 3 > 2, 5 > 4 and so on).
Some other comments:
1 Éomer and Lothiriel wed, Elanor Gardner born ---> T.A. 3021; by the way: Elanor Gardner or Elanor Gamgee or Elanor the Fair? I just thought that only Frodo had the surname Gardner
24 Death of Imrahil. Elphir becomes Prince of Dol Amroth. Firiel Gardner born ---Who is this Firiel? As far as I know, Tolman was the youngest of the children of Sam and Rosie. And I suppose that the name should be Fíriel, not Firiel, if anything.
62 Death of Rose Gardner. Círdan and Samwise pass over sea ---Rose Gamgee, I suppose. Or did Samwise really change his name to Gardner??
--Tik 17:04, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
- I didn't notice this question. I'll answer it now. Frodo did not change his name to Gardner; he kept Baggins. Sam did. But I'm not sure who Firiel is. --Narfil Palùrfalas 17:50, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
- Sorry for being unclear again. I didn't mean F. Baggins but Frodo Gardner, the son of master Samwise. --Tik 03:15, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
- So you thought that just Frodo Gardner had that name? Based on the family tree in the back of the book, I suppose. But no, Samwise changed his name from Gamgee to Gardner. I'll find a quote for you, if you wish.
- I found it. On the introduction page of Appendix C (and I'm sure elsewhere also), it says "In addition to some genealogical information is provided concerning Samwise the founder of the family of Gardner, later famous and influential". And notice, in the family tree, how it puts "Gardner" in parentheses below Samwise's name. I saw it somewhere else too, if I could only remember. . . --Narfil Palùrfalas 07:44, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
Morgoth or Melkor? Years of the Lamps?
Perhaps I'm just hypercritical or smth, but I think there is a kind of anachronism if Melkor is called Morgoth already in the Years of the Lamps.
--Tik 17:25, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
- I'm not sure about your second question, but as to the first one, no, Melkor was not named Morgoth until he destroyed the Two Trees. See the quote below:
- " [Fëanor has just been told of Formenos by messengers, how his father was killed and the Silmarils taken] . . . Then Fëanor rose, and lifting up his hand before Manwë he cursed Melkor, naming him Morgoth, the Black Foe of the World; and by that name only was he known to the Eldar ever after. . ."
- ― The Silmarillion, "Of the Flight of the Noldor"
- Do you mind rephrasing your second question a little? --Narfil Palùrfalas 17:46, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
- No, of course: I suppose that Tolkien himself did not use the term "Years of the Lamps" in the meaning "The Age that began with the arrival of the Valar to Arda and ended with the flowering of the Trees". The Years of the Lamps began only about 1500 Valian Years after the beginning of this Age and ended 50 Valian Years before the end of the Age). In the Annals of Aman (HoME X, 51) Tolkien only talks about "the Days before days" when referring to the Age before the Years of the Trees. So, how should one name this era, or Age? I'm not quite happy with calling it the Years of the Lamps. Of course I should have a better suggestion instead, but unfortunately I do not have one.
--Tik 03:11, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
- Well, I shall have to look deeper into that, but I do know in the Silmarillion in the chapter "Of the Beginning of Days", it says that time was not counted until the flowering of the trees. I hope that helps. . . a little. --Narfil Palùrfalas 07:44, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
This whole section is messed up:
- 1492 Morgoth slays Finwë and steals the Silmarils
- 1495 Morgoth destroys the Two Trees. First Kinslaying at Alqualondë
- 1496 Doom of Mandos
- 1497 Fëanor and sons enters Beleriand. Death of Denethor. Burning of the ships at Losgar, death of Amras
- 1498 Dagor-nuin-Giliath ("Battle Under the Stars"), death of Fëanor, Maedhros captured
- 1499 Maedhros imprisoned upon Thangorodrim
- 1500 Creation of Moon and Sun. Host of Noldor enter Beleriand under Fingolfin. Battle of the Lammoth, death of Argon
Firstly, the time Morgoth slew Finwë and stole the Silmarils is the same day that he destroyed the two trees. Also, it is saying that it took five years for the Noldor to get from Aman to Middle-earth. The book gives no reference for that, and I would say that the most would be two years. For instance, it says that it took three years to cross the Helcaraxë, and it was a whole year after the burning of the ships at Losgar before Morgoth attacked them. Now, based on the assumption that the world was round like a plate at that time, the Helcaraxë might be two months in the crossing, perhaps a little more, but definately not three years. Also, Morgoth attacked the Noldor of Fëanor before they could establish themselves. There are numerous other arguments against the above dates, but the point is that they are all messed up. I'm not sure what we want to do with this, but I know we don't want to keep the dates the EoA gives. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:48, 6 September 2006 (EDT)
- I agree, there are a lot of inconsistencies. Our best bet is most likely taking a few of the more accurate timelines on the internet and making sure they all show the same date for the event, if any timeline differs then we can research it more. Insert non-formatted text here
- Looking at the number of times it has been accessed (3,000+ times), I think we should probably add a note at the top stating its current innaccuracy and its need for revision. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:05, 18 February 2007 (EST)
- I was wrong about the Helcaraxë. . . believe it or not, Tolkien states that the crossing took an amazing three years in the Grey Annals (it looks suspiciously like he was trying to compute an even 1500, but never mind). Nevertheless I was right about its innaccuracies otherwise. Based on this writing (written in the 50s, found in The War of the Jewels) and the Annals of Aman (found in Morgoth's Ring), I suggest that we go through this timeline and fix/confirm everything, as well as source it. I am working on a Círdan rewrite at the moment, but when I am done, this shall go under top priority. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Okay, now that we (or just myself?) are rather decided on "Fourth Age X" I'm leaning towards the idea of adding redirects from the abbreviated, "F.A. X" since this version will be used frequently in the articles. That'll force us to create quite a few redirects but I'm up for the challenge. What do you guys think? I would also like to create some sort of template/layout for the year articles so they don't just have a few bulleted items in them. Any suggestions? --Hyarion 14:47, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
- I'd be up to it. Do you think that it would be better to use periods or not? Also there's the problem that First and Fourth begin with F. I'd used FA for "First Age" and FoA for "Fourth Age". What do you think? --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:38, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
- Just personal opinion (I will help out with whatever is decided): I don't think the periods are absolutely necessary to denote that the capital letters are initials. It looks "cleaner" without them, IMO. I like FA and FoA...is there an article already to explain the various acronyms found throughout the site? As for making lots of redirects, I will be having major oral surgery soon and that is something I can see myself helping out with quite a bit while I recuperate. By layout for the years do you mean something like Wikipedia's 1977, for example? --fleela 16:55, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
- My initial opinion of the periods is to have them as they are present in the Appendices, is there anywhere in which J.R.R. Tolkien or Christopher Tolkien did not use the periods? I'm unable to find any abbreviation of Fourth Age in Tolkien's works aside from "F.A." which definitely won't do. FoA or Fo.A would be my vote as well for Fourth Age. I'm still unsure with what to do with the Years of the Lamps/Trees. The main aspect of Wikipedia's year article I wouldn't mind borrowing would be the year navigation in the top right, we should at least allow the visitor to click forward or backward a few years. --Hyarion 17:05, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
- The only -without period- abbreviations I can think of off the top of my head are in Robert Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-earth. Also, he uses FO as the short form for Fourth Age, but, to me, that doesn't seem very intuitive for a casual reader. And now that I look at it some more, Fo.A (with period) looks more self-explanatory than FoA, where the "o" usually stands for "of" in that type of acronym. --fleela 18:12, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
- I personally prefer the form without the periods. It's easier, in my opinion, and looks better. But Tolkien does use periods in the Appendices, and also I agree that "Fo.A" looks better than "FoA". But "Fo.A" would be a little inconsistent if we did not have periods; with periods it would be "Fo.A.". Overall I'm fine with whatever standard we set; this is just my preference. --Narfil Palùrfalas 18:50, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
- Okay then, I'm pretty confident periods and Fo.A is our best bet. Before we make the redirects however we should create the articles. And before we create the articles I would like to go through and double check all the years to make sure they are correct. So from now on if you verify a year is correct go ahead and create the article (preferably listing the reference) and link the Timeline to it. Then we'll know what has been verified. --Hyarion 18:56, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
More date issuses
For the dates that are preceded by a month and day, should the Age abbreviation come before or after the year? Compare the dates in the infoboxes of Battle of the Morannon and Battle of the Hornburg. --fleela 09:13, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I have noticed there seems to be some contradictions in this timeline page and some of the character pages. For example: Here it says Fingolfin became High King of the Noldor in First Age 5, but at his page it says at the bottom he became king in First Age 1, and here it says that Beren Erchamion was born in First Age 432 but at his page it says he was born in First Age 443. Which date is it? Have these things not been decided here yet or is it simply an error?
Personally, I think that in the case of Fingolfin the date given here is more likely because Fingolfin's host began arriving in Middle-earth, in Mithlum when the sun rose at about the same time men awoke. At this time, the matter of the succession's rights had not been resolved yet and the Noldor began arguing over who would be the ultimate leader. It was only after Fingon rescued Maedhros from his tortures on Thangorodrim that the matter was resolved and the overlordship was passed peacefully to the House of Fingolfin. A date of First Age 5 would seem more appropriatel.