Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Third Age 3019

Legolas raised a valid point, if I may say so, by wondering whether this article "really need[s] so many links". Is one link not enough when someone or something is mentioned the first time? --Earendilyon 14:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

In all the other articles I would agree, but the reason in those articles I only link the first mention is due to the visitor most likely reading from top to bottom. I guess I just think if I was reading a timeline I'm going to be looking for a specific year, so if I jump down to a specific year, I want to be able to click a link to continue, not have to scroll up looking for the first mention. But it's up to you guys, the article is pretty link-filled. --Hyarion 14:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

In Appendix B the date given for "The funeral escort of King Théoden sets out" is July 19. However, this date does not match the sequence of events in the narrative. In The Return of the King, Chapter 6, "Many Partings", the following is stated:

1. When Frodo asked to go home, Aragorn said "In seven days we will go" and added, "In three days now Éomer will return..."

2. A few paragraphs later: "In three days, as the King had said, Éomer of Rohan came riding into the city..." In Appendix B "Éomer returns to Minas Tirith" occurs on July 18.

3. Next comes: "At last the day of departure came..."

4. Finally: "At length after fifteen days of journey the wain of King Théoden ... came to Edoras". In Appendix B "The escort comes to Edoras" occurs on August 7.

Notes 1 and 2 above show that the date of departure should be July 22, 4 days after the arrival of Éomer on the 18th. From Note 4 above, subtracting 15 days from August 7 (and using the 30-day month of July from the Shire calendar) also places the departure date on July 22. Since the narrative provides two matching calculations for the departure date I believe that July 22 should be shown in the list of dates. I have made this change but I have detailed my reasons for all to discuss. --Gamling 17:25, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Indeed, this correction has been made in the 50th Anniversary Edition of the text; I don't know why it wasn't corrected here. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)