Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Elves

I am considering whether or not to create Elf-lords as a seperate category. The questions I have are

  1. Who exactly qualifies as an elf-lord? Those of the House of Finwë and the House of Thingol or just any important elf?
  2. Is it worth its own article?

--Narfil Palùrfalas 21:17, 24 June 2006 (EDT)

Contents

[edit] Work on this Article

I notice that this page is the most popular article on the wiki. It seems to be lacking some organization or something. It contains a lot of information, but needs some improvement. I was wondering if there were any precise suggestions for the article. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:10, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I also note that the Middle-earth and Witch-king of Angmar articles, the second and fourth most popular respectively, also need serious work. I think though that Morgoth, Gandalf, and J.R.R. Tolkien, the other most popular articles, will suffice. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

[edit] Outline and Sub-articles

What do you guys think needs to be done to this article? If we plan on changing it a lot maybe we should consider creating an outline first. I also think it's apparent the article is going to be lengthy, what about creating sub-articles such as "Elves/History", we could have a link to the history article within the Elves article and underneath the link we could have a synopsis of the article. Maybe it's just me but I have a hard time taking away information from a really long article. --Hyarion 20:20, 28 February 2007 (EST)

That sounds excellent. I've never heard of a wiki doing that before (in my limited experience), but I think it would work great. The one thing is that the title bar would be Elves/History (which may not be a bad thing, I don't know), and the template for changing that doesn't work on the new default skin. I was intending to suggest an article titled History of the Elves or something, but your suggestion appeals as well. --Narfil Palùrfalas 21:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)
That was exactly my other thought, that way it will be easier to link to it from other articles as well and it will look nicer. We actually already had the article created for a few sections so I've added them, I'll work on the others tonight. --Hyarion 23:19, 28 February 2007 (EST)
Looking back at Forum:TG Advent: 30 Improved pages for the New Year, I came back to this article. You know, a lot of this article is dedicated to elven characteristics. Should this article be based around this, or should the wealth of information be moved to a subarticle? Then again, if we move away both the characteristics and the history, we might not have much of an article. . . What do you(pl.) think? At any rate, this still needs work, and we can't let it drop from the list of priorities until it's fixed. --Narfil Palùrfalas 07:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you're right, maybe we can create another article for characteristics, and trim down the sections on this page so we can focus on the more important aspects. --Hyarion 14:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Does anyone else have an opinion on this? We really need to get whatever we're going to do done soon. It's bad business for the most popular article to be one of the biggest messes in the wiki (if not the biggest). --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's go ahead and do it. Should we split away Elvish History, or keep it as it is, with links to sections from Elvish History? At any rate, I suggest we keep Elvish Characteristics in this page, and move Life and Customs to. . . say. . . Life and Customs of the Eldar, or something suitable. --Narfil Palùrfalas 12:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Hyarion, do you have any comments/suggestions/approval/input in general? I'd like to do this as soon as possible; or, if you like, you can do it while I'm at my meeting tonight. --Narfil Palùrfalas 18:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

A rewrite is now in progress. I couldn't find an "Under Construction" template, but if we have one, it would be a good idea to add it now. --Narfil Palùrfalas 12:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The rewrite is finished. As soon as we do a little cleanup and add a section on the Kindreds, I'd say it's done sufficiently. Any input? --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:41, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Fantastic! I haven't read it all the way through but it looks great, an immense improvement. I'll work on it some more this weekend, great job. --Hyarion 15:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Good. We also need to work on the subarticles Elven Characteristics, Elven Life cycle, and Elven Customs. You'll notice a slight overlap in the last two; we need to correct that. I'm not sure I'll get to this today, but if you don't do it, I will eventually. --Narfil Palùrfalas 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Do we know anything about elven funeral customs and what they do with thier dead?

Since we know that elves do died by sorrow and combat and like to know if we know what they actually did to thier dead like Mortals did? I just like to know. Thanks. And it might as well sounded like a kind of interesting subject too.

[edit] Elves Left-handedness

As many as you know I play Lord of the Rings Online. I was listening to the podcast The Secrets of Middle-earth (formerly The Secrets of Lord of the Rings) and he noticed that many of the Elves of Rivendell are left-handed. I'm wondering where the developers got this from. Is this canon lore? --Pinkkeith 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In a late writing, ◦”Eldarin Hands, Fingers & Numerals and Related Writings” (published in Vinyar Tengwar 47-49), Tolkien wrote that Elves were ambidextrous. --Morgan 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

It's been there since 2008 and although the article hasn't changed much since then I'd be inclined to remove it. Sources aside (that tag should stay) it's a decent enough article, and we don't have to tag everything that's not perfect. I worry that having cleanup tags on highly visible articles for years on end gives people the wrong impression of the quality of the wiki as a whole. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 10:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree. For a popular page like this, I think we should only have a cleanup tag if (1) it's really bad (2) or if if someone is actually working on improving the page. Otherwise, as you said, we should put tags on almost all articles! --Morgan 10:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree (not because it's a popular page, but because I don't think it's that much of a mess at all). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)