User talk:Gamling - Revision history

Gamling: /* HoMe chapters */

2013-02-10T23:52:21Z

HoMe chapters

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:52, 10 February 2013
Line 100:		Line 100:
	==HoMe chapters==		==HoMe chapters==
	I noticed you've been working on creating articles for the chapters of ''The Return of the Shadow'', and therefore created a template for displaying these: [[Template:HoMe6chapters]]. I'll add links to new chapter articles once these are created, but feel free to edit the template as you like (or just let me know if you have any suggestions).--[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 20:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)		I noticed you've been working on creating articles for the chapters of ''The Return of the Shadow'', and therefore created a template for displaying these: [[Template:HoMe6chapters]]. I'll add links to new chapter articles once these are created, but feel free to edit the template as you like (or just let me know if you have any suggestions).--[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 20:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Thank you. I will continue to add articles and I plan to eventually go through all four books regarding the history of writing ''The Lord of the Rings''.--[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 23:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Morgan at 20:20, 10 February 2013

2013-02-10T20:20:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 10 February 2013
Line 97:		Line 97:

	:::I agree with using lowercase letters for word-articles. For example, when I was updating articles about tengwar I didn't know what to do about [[Vilya]]. The already existing article was a proper noun discussing the ring Vilya. I added "vilya" the word and tengwa in the body of the article but I think it would be better if we had a disambiguation for "Vilya (ring)" and "vilya" the word/tengwa (all of the tengwa articles start with the name as a word and then discuss the letter). I didn't make these changes at the time because I thought I'd be opening a can of worms for lots of changes to many articles. I agree that this subject would be good for a meeting. --[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)		:::I agree with using lowercase letters for word-articles. For example, when I was updating articles about tengwar I didn't know what to do about [[Vilya]]. The already existing article was a proper noun discussing the ring Vilya. I added "vilya" the word and tengwa in the body of the article but I think it would be better if we had a disambiguation for "Vilya (ring)" and "vilya" the word/tengwa (all of the tengwa articles start with the name as a word and then discuss the letter). I didn't make these changes at the time because I thought I'd be opening a can of worms for lots of changes to many articles. I agree that this subject would be good for a meeting. --[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	==HoMe chapters==
		+	I noticed you've been working on creating articles for the chapters of ''The Return of the Shadow'', and therefore created a template for displaying these: [[Template:HoMe6chapters]]. I'll add links to new chapter articles once these are created, but feel free to edit the template as you like (or just let me know if you have any suggestions).--[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 20:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Gamling: /* Linguistic articles */

2012-10-21T20:14:47Z

Linguistic articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:14, 21 October 2012
Line 95:		Line 95:

	::Another small point (which you likely already have noticed): something which we really haven't decided is if articles about words should start with a lowercase letter or not. I personally favour to use lowercase (to conform with dictionaries, and to separate these from articles about proper names). Perhaps we need to decide/discuss this in a meeting.--[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 20:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)		::Another small point (which you likely already have noticed): something which we really haven't decided is if articles about words should start with a lowercase letter or not. I personally favour to use lowercase (to conform with dictionaries, and to separate these from articles about proper names). Perhaps we need to decide/discuss this in a meeting.--[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 20:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::I agree with using lowercase letters for word-articles. For example, when I was updating articles about tengwar I didn't know what to do about [[Vilya]]. The already existing article was a proper noun discussing the ring Vilya. I added "vilya" the word and tengwa in the body of the article but I think it would be better if we had a disambiguation for "Vilya (ring)" and "vilya" the word/tengwa (all of the tengwa articles start with the name as a word and then discuss the letter). I didn't make these changes at the time because I thought I'd be opening a can of worms for lots of changes to many articles. I agree that this subject would be good for a meeting. --[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Morgan: /* Linguistic articles */

2012-10-21T20:02:24Z

Linguistic articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 21 October 2012
Line 93:		Line 93:

	:Thank you for these guidelines. When I got started on these articles I was editing earlier articles and the styling was all over the place. I will make the necessary adjustments. --[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)		:Thank you for these guidelines. When I got started on these articles I was editing earlier articles and the styling was all over the place. I will make the necessary adjustments. --[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Another small point (which you likely already have noticed): something which we really haven't decided is if articles about words should start with a lowercase letter or not. I personally favour to use lowercase (to conform with dictionaries, and to separate these from articles about proper names). Perhaps we need to decide/discuss this in a meeting.--[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 20:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Gamling: /* Linguistic articles */

2012-10-21T19:57:29Z

Linguistic articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 21 October 2012
Line 91:		Line 91:
	*Perhaps also assign the articles to a word class category.		*Perhaps also assign the articles to a word class category.
	If you have any comments, please let me know! --[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)		If you have any comments, please let me know! --[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Thank you for these guidelines. When I got started on these articles I was editing earlier articles and the styling was all over the place. I will make the necessary adjustments. --[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Morgan at 19:49, 21 October 2012

2012-10-21T19:49:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 21 October 2012
Line 83:		Line 83:

	:::I agree with discussing this matter at a meeting and look forward to it.		:::I agree with discussing this matter at a meeting and look forward to it.
		+
		+	==Linguistic articles==
		+
		+	Thanks for creating articles about Elvish words! A few thoughts:
		+	*Elvish words ((and other invented languages) should be in italics, so please use <nowiki>'''''[word]'''''</nowiki> (five colons) for the first mention of the word.
		+	*Please add <nowiki>{{title\|lowercase}}</nowiki> below the reference template.
		+	*Perhaps also assign the articles to a word class category.
		+	If you have any comments, please let me know! --[[User:Morgan\|Morgan]] 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Gamling: /* Fourth Age years */

2012-09-30T18:44:53Z

Fourth Age years

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 30 September 2012
Line 81:		Line 81:

	::I wasn't aware of these contradictions between the appendices and the prologue. It's interesting that Hammond and Scull did not correct this in the 50th anniversary edition, but perhaps they had a good reason not to (if they were aware of it). I think this is something that we should discuss at a meeting as I know a few other people have opinions on this matter.--00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)		::I wasn't aware of these contradictions between the appendices and the prologue. It's interesting that Hammond and Scull did not correct this in the 50th anniversary edition, but perhaps they had a good reason not to (if they were aware of it). I think this is something that we should discuss at a meeting as I know a few other people have opinions on this matter.--00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::I agree with discussing this matter at a meeting and look forward to it.

KingAragorn: /* Fourth Age years */

2012-09-29T00:33:14Z

Fourth Age years

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 29 September 2012
Line 79:		Line 79:

	:So King Aragorn, what should be the standard for Tolkien Gateway? I am willing to change the Fourth Age years according to any set standard, but I am leery of putting in an explanation as long as the one above in every Fourth Age year article. I am glad though that you've raised this discussion since I am still in doubt myself.		:So King Aragorn, what should be the standard for Tolkien Gateway? I am willing to change the Fourth Age years according to any set standard, but I am leery of putting in an explanation as long as the one above in every Fourth Age year article. I am glad though that you've raised this discussion since I am still in doubt myself.
		+
		+	::I wasn't aware of these contradictions between the appendices and the prologue. It's interesting that Hammond and Scull did not correct this in the 50th anniversary edition, but perhaps they had a good reason not to (if they were aware of it). I think this is something that we should discuss at a meeting as I know a few other people have opinions on this matter.--00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Gamling: /* Fourth Age years */

2012-09-25T20:34:05Z

Fourth Age years

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:34, 25 September 2012
Line 58:		Line 58:

	I bring this up because I don't think the note that you've been adding to Fourth Age years is accurate. What do you think? Thanks for sorting out the Fourth Age (and other ages too) years by the way, they were in a right state!--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}}		I bring this up because I don't think the note that you've been adding to Fourth Age years is accurate. What do you think? Thanks for sorting out the Fourth Age (and other ages too) years by the way, they were in a right state!--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}}
		+
		+
		+	:The problem of assigning events to the proper year in the Fourth Age is something I’ve wrestled with quite a bit. As you noted, in both Appendix B and in Appendix D, Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1442, in the view of the Hobbits. However, the Gondorian system established by King Elessar has the beginning of the year shifted by 86 days, as noted in my Note attached to various Fourth Age years, based on the Tolkien’s explanation:
		+	{{Blockquote\|In the New Reckoning the year began on March 25 old style... The Months retained their former names, beginning now with ''Víressë'' (April), but referred to periods beginning generally five days earlier than previously.\|{{App\|Calendars}}}}
		+	:The question is whether the Tolkien Gateway standard should be '''Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1442''' or '''the Gondorian system and the Hobbits' system vary; events are assigned with an acknowledgement of the variation'''?
		+
		+	:Here is what led me to favor the second standard: If Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1422, then to calculate a Fourth Age year you subtract 1421 from a Shire Reckoning date. In the "Later Events" section of the Tale of Years the entry for S.R. 1484 states:
		+	{{Blockquote\|In the spring of the year a message came from Rohan to Buckland that King Éomer wished to see Master Holdwine once again. … It was heard after that Master Meriadoc came to Edoras and was with King Éomer before he died in that autumn. Then he and Thain Peregrin went to Gondor…\|{{App\|Later}}}}
		+	If you subtract 1421 from 1484 then the year for all of these events is Fourth Age '''63'''. However, in the "Note on the Shire Records" in the Prologue there is this comment about the Thain's Book that was used by Findegil in Minas Tirith:
		+	{{Blockquote\|That book was a copy, made at the request of King Elessar…and was brought to him by the Thain Peregrin when he retired to Gondor in IV '''64'''.\|{{App\|Records}}}}
		+	:In this instance S.R. 1484 is equated with Fourth Age 64 and the difference is only 1420 instead of 1421. Since the "Later Events" entry begins with the words "In the spring…" of 1484 and spring would occur in ''Víressë'' (April), I believe that all of the listed events occurred in the Hobbits' year 1484 and in the Gondorians' year 64, which began in March. If the Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1422 system is used then these events must all be put into Fourth Age 63, which contradicts the Prologue's information.
		+
		+	:In the same "Shire Records" section it is stated that the most important copy of the Red Book was "completed in S.R. 1592 (F.A. 172)." Again the difference is 1420 instead of 1421. If 1421 were subtracted from 1592 then we would place this event in Fourth Age 171, another contradiction with the text. There are thus two instances which support the dates are at odds between the reckonings system.
		+
		+	:However, in the "Later Events" section, there is clear support for the synonymous system. For the year 1541 it is stated that King Elessar died on March 1st, and this is specifically said to be in "Fourth Age (Gondor) 120". March 1st is obviously before March 25th, which is New Years Day in the New Reckoning calendar, and obviously 120 is 1421 less than 1541, rather than 1420.
		+
		+	:I think that Tolkien himself got confused and created this mess. When he was rushing to complete the appendices for publication he used the Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1422 standard for the whole "Later Events" section. But, when he wrote the Prologue he used the different standard that matched what was laid out in Appendix D, the Calendars. Thus we in Tolkien Gateway are left with a contradictory situation.
		+
		+	:When I updated the Fourth Age years I used Fourth Age dates when given (such as from Durin's Folk or from ''Peoples of Middle-earth'' data). When I could determine in which part of the year an event occurred, such as Samwise's elections to the mayorship on Midyear's Day, I put it into the appropriate year (although I left Aragorn's death in 120 since it was so clearly stated). For the Shire Reckoning dates that had no month or seasonal information I put them in the later year and added the warning that they might be in the previous year. However, since the date of Aragorn's death favors the synonymous system I fully appreciate that it's a mess, which is why I haven’t touched the [[Timeline/Fourth Age]] article – I wanted to see what others thought before I went too far.
		+
		+	:So King Aragorn, what should be the standard for Tolkien Gateway? I am willing to change the Fourth Age years according to any set standard, but I am leery of putting in an explanation as long as the one above in every Fourth Age year article. I am glad though that you've raised this discussion since I am still in doubt myself.

KingAragorn: /* Fourth Age years */ new section

2012-09-25T17:24:54Z

Fourth Age years: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 25 September 2012
Line 46:		Line 46:

	:I agree with changing the tense if that's the standard. In our manual of style under "[[Tolkien Gateway:Manual of Style#Tense\|Tense]]" there is only the rule that in-universe articles should be in the past tense but since nothing was said about other articles I just kept using past tense for the letters. Perhaps the Manual could be expanded on this point. --[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 22:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)		:I agree with changing the tense if that's the standard. In our manual of style under "[[Tolkien Gateway:Manual of Style#Tense\|Tense]]" there is only the rule that in-universe articles should be in the past tense but since nothing was said about other articles I just kept using past tense for the letters. Perhaps the Manual could be expanded on this point. --[[User:Gamling\|Gamling]] 22:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Fourth Age years ==
		+
		+	For the year {{SR\|1422}} in Appendix B it says:
		+	{{Blockquote\|With the beginning of this year the Fourth Age began in the count of years in the Shire; but the numbers of the years of Shire Reckoning were continued.\|{{App\|Later}}}}
		+
		+	At the end of Appendix E it also says:
		+	{{Blockquote\|This reckoning was in the course of the reign of King Elessar adopted in all his lands except the Shire, where the old calendar was retained and Shire Reckoning was continued. Fourth Age 1 was thus called 1422; and in so far as the Hobbits took any account of the change of Age, they maintained that it began with 2 Yule 1422, and not in the previous March\|{{App\|E}}}}
		+
		+	This, I think, clearly shows that we can take Fourth Age 1 and Shire Reckoning 1422 to be synonymous. Fourth Age 1 in Gondorian reckoning is, of course, not exactly the same as Shire Reckoning 1422.
		+
		+	I bring this up because I don't think the note that you've been adding to Fourth Age years is accurate. What do you think? Thanks for sorting out the Fourth Age (and other ages too) years by the way, they were in a right state!--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}}