|This page is ment to relieve tension on my Talk Page. If you deem any of the below discussions unfinished, respond to them on my Talk Page, and not here.|
 WITN release year
 Secret Vice
- Couple of reasons:
- No markup.
- No sources.
- No composition.
- Poor spelling.
- POV. He begins "in a subtle fasion [sic]"? That's commentary.
- Basically, that an article requires a rewrite does not mean we can accept anything. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I still think it was a pretty good summary (although especially suffering from a POV as you say, - but the poor spelling is easily fixed and if the POV is removed no sources would be needed as it would be only a summary). I'll have a go at editing the anonymous user's text.--Morgan 12:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was more work than I expected ;-) --Morgan 14:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, full day of classes. Looks like Mith already has it. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 On Tolkien
As far as I know, it hasn't been published yet.--Morgan 16:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, I don't think it's problematic to use Noel as a source in those cases where no other analyses of a name have appeared. Especially if we're clear about giving the reference and denoting the etymology as being a "suggestion". And if a new analysis appears, it's possible to see how olkien linguists have historically interpreted a certain word. I'd say it's a bit similar to "Portrayal in Adaptions": even if we don't think that this or that adaptation was authentic, we still include it for the sake of completeness. What do you think? --Morgan 14:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Normally I'd say true, but in this case, it's so obviously proven incorrect by later info that we'd best not mention it. I haven't checked the Etymologies, Elfling or PE yet for a more accurate etymology. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi I'm Vaire thanks for making my user page open for other people and a real page, and I have a question, on the user page how do you add the box on the side where you can describe yourself? You can tell me on my user page Vaire
Thank you, sorry about the mistakes I made in editing Vaire
I did what it said to do in the here but when I saved it just said all the things I typed, I did do it on my iPad if that makes a difference. Vaire
- I have no idea what you're trying to tell me. You tried what? --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
For the user info box I copied what it said on the link you gave me and filled it out and I saved it an my user page but the box did not come up it just said was I typed, but when I typed it I used my iPad, does that make I difference? Vaire
- No, it went wrong because you typed the template instead of copy pasting it. Those vertical lines aren't capital I's. That's a "pipe", |. You can find it on uppercase \ on most keyboards, not sure about the iPad. I fixed it, it displays properly now. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!! And I think that I can edit know Vaire
Thank you for telling me about adding the catagorys when creating a page about a year. Vaire 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 New signs?
Perhaps add £ $ € to the insert box? I have neither of these on my keyboard.--Morgan 23:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- They're already on there. Okay, not the Dollar, but Pound and Euro are. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 Deletion of old version of images
- Thanks!-- 22:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 Reverts on my edits to Fingon and Turgon.
Hi there. Recently, I made some contribution to the Etymologies of Fingon and Turgon. The original writing did not give clear meanings, and just showed a lot of IPA. I made some proper edits to them, quoting from Tokien's works, showing the roots of all the different elements within their names. however, my edits appear to have been removed since i didn't reference the facts. This is not strictly true, since I wrote all the references to my information directly in the section. I just didn't show them as footnote references. Will you revert it? Should i add footnote references?
--Reallyfat 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Couple of points:
- Yes, inline notes are preferred. See here for all the sourcing templates.
- You should never, ever, use the first person on a wiki. "We know..." Aargh.
- Beginning a second paragraph with "Note that"... also a stylistic no no.
- The entire second paragraph of Fingon is incorrect. Caun is attested Sindarin, and it would become -gon.
- So, it's not at all about sources... it's because cleaning up required too much work, and would eventually be no different from the original. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, thanks a lot. I will remove the second paragraph there and in Turgon., since i was not paying attention to "Caun". I wonder how I overlooked it? I was following the books all the way. Anyway, I will do that, and take care with the first person in future. Apart from that, can the translations remain up?
PS: What is wrong with saying "note that"? --Reallyfat 17:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, I don't buy that :) but in any case, an expression like "note that" is actually second person (imperative), which, like the first person, is unencyclopedic. An acceptable expression would be "It is worth noting/notable that..." (and no, it doesn't always precede a trivia :)) Sage 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Right. I will keep that in mind. So, CAN I post my edits (with the amendments made)? I just want to putthe proper translations up, since these current ones aren't exactly correct. Plus, Sarafinwë is only from Parma Eldalamberon, It isn't even from Tolkien's works. —Unsigned comment by Reallyfat (talk • contribs).
- Parma Eldalamberon publishes works by Tolkien. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Where in any version of the Legendarium, the old HoMe, or any of tolkiens letters is Sarafinwë mentioned? The only source we have is Parma Eldalamberon, Parma 17. --Reallyfat 04:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Reallyfat, thanks so much for your recent contributions! I think Ederchil agrees that the source is from Parma Eldalamberon, but because it originates from Tolkien's own manuscripts, it's worth noting. Obviously it's not going to be considered as canon as other things, but as long as we reference it, we can let the reader decide. Thanks again for your help! --Hyarion 04:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 practically all changes deleted?!
Hello, I am the individual who posted changes to the Glorfindel entry. Other than the initial speculation that he may have come back from Aman as late as after 3264 S.A.(which you or another promptly deleted), I kept my speculations to a minimum & all that was posted thereafter was on firm ground, based on that written by Prof. Tolkien or easily inferred therefrom (nothing I posted thereafter was removed for hours). Therefore, I'm upset that someone felt the need to undo all that I added in my generousity. The text reads essentially as I found it & my time & my effort & my entry-enhancing-in-depth-understanding all wasted. None of it was in conflict with pre-existing content & merely added dimension to the entry. Thus, due to the heavy handed way in which all my contributions were wrongfully deleted (one could have edited my text, just I as did the original), I won't be bothering in future to share my insight or wisdom in these matters & on this site. It's patently obvious to any who have read all of Tolkien's works that there were some few other Wise left in Middle Earth (Erestor, Galdor, Gildor Inglorion & also, at least those unidentified of the Tareldar that Elrond dispatched to look for the ring party). As well, Glorfindel likely did stay & assist Cirdan in the ongoing 'evacuation' over time of the elves from Middle Earth to Aman. At LEAST as likely as him speculatively awaiting the Blue Wizards (of whom little to nothing is confirmably known), yet my firm ground additions get canned as 'speculative', while this Blue Wizard statement remains?! Very often, less is not more ... but you have decided, so be it. Have your way, & thus less ... & hope you're happy....
- I raised other points as well. Check your talk page again. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 Gondorian cavalry
What exactly is wrong with the following addition to the scanty section on the Cavalry of Gondor, that you deleted?
"However, Imrahil was not the only commander of Gondorian cavalry, as at the Battle of the Pelennor Field the horsemen were led not only by Imrahil but also by Hurin the Tall, Warden of the Keys, Forlong of Lossarnach and Hirluin of the Green Hills.<refThe Return of the King, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields, p. 121</ref The kings of Gondor evidently maintained a force of knights, as Earnur had an escort of knights when he went to answer the challenge to combat issued by the Lord of Morgul.<refThe Return of the King, Appendix A, p. 332</ref"
Is it inaccurate? Please check, you will find that it isn't.
Is it irrelevant? There is precious little in Tolkien's writings that gives any detail on Gondorian cavalry, so any addition ought to be welcome.
BTW, with reference to other assertions on the page, there is only one mention of plate armour in the whole of LOTR - that is Imrahil's vambrace (forearm protection). All representation of other plate armour is entirely unsupported by Tolkien's work. —Unsigned comment by 188.8.131.52 (talk).
- It starts with "However". The article needs work, but adding stuff starting with "however, also this" isn't the way to do it. It would be much better, not just for accuracy, but also for structure, to rewrite the entire section incorporating all available info. The wiki phrase for this is "Repair, don't respond". Because with "however", you respond to the previous section. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 Lord of the rings translations
- We have a separate page on Translations. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
But I was trying to do like The Hobbit page. Where the books tranlated are separed by year of publication.User:Sigurd/sig
 Info removed from Thorin page
Hi, I'm new here and still trying to figure out the system. : ) You removed my edit because of "wrong method of sourcing". Were you just referring to the format? (i.e., would the following be more correct: J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), <The Peoples of Middle-earth,"Part One. The Prologue and Appendices to The Lord of the RIngs: The Making of Appendix A (Chapter 19)" ?) Also, I understand what you mean about it not fitting in that paragraph. Would it be better on the Oakenshield page? Thanks for your help.
- We use referencing templates - see Template:PM for People of M-e.
- It didn't fit in the paragraph because you left one original sentence at the end. That sentence had no connection to the one you added. Also, it contained the sources for the entire section, which you negated by adding a new source before that. It was a lengthy elaboration that broke the structure. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I appreciate the work you do to maintain a high-quality site. Hopefully I'll learn the ropes quickly and not take up too much of your time in the future.
Please look at my forum on Voronwë.--Pippin4 02:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ederchil! I'll be putting up a new Forum soon please check it out when it comes! --Pippin4 15:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 Idril page
I hope you are having a good holiday.
As to the Idril page I put the information on their that is found in the book of Lost tales 2 Appendix. Could you please tell me what I did wrong?
- Multiple things. It being wrong wasn't one of them - but writing is more than stringing together words.
- First of all, you dropped it on the page without regard for the structure of the section. The first section is about the meaning of Idril, the next part is about alternate names. And then you drop two sentences about Idril after that, divided by a white line. The main rule to editing a wiki is don't add, rewrite.
- If it's worth noting, note it. Don't say it's worth it. That's objective.
- Actually, the phrase is "It's worth noting", not "It's worthy of noting". But yeah. Never use either.
- "Furthermore" isn't the right word to use here, as it implies a continuation of something introduced in the preceding sentence. But it wasn't. The first was about a different word resembling it; the second about the word in another language.
- For references, you have to use <ref> tags, as well as our Cit templates. That's not optional. See here for help.
- So there. It was style, not accuracy. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 23:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)