Hello Cyril, and welcome to Tolkien Gateway! I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- Internal pages:
- External Wikipedia pages:
I hope you enjoy editing here and we look forward to your future edits. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Council forums, join our chat or ask me on my talk page. Keep up the great work!
-- Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
First Age Category
Please, stop. See First Age#Terminology, User talk:LorenzoCB#First Age. --LorenzoCB 12:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I read "First Age#Terminology" before, so that's why I decided to add a category "First Age years" to all of these articles. 1500 Valian years plus 590 solar years equals First Age of Arda, isn't it?
- The section explains that Tolkien Gateway uses the terminology in which "First Age" is used for the first of the Ages of the Sun. If we tag the Years of the Trees as part of the First Age, it will require a total revision of the wiki, and we are not doing that. --LorenzoCB 13:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- I actually agree with Ar-Zigur here. Way too many online sources commit the mistake of equating First Age with the final years of the First Age (years of the Sun 1 - 590), when it has been explicitly confirmed by Tolkien, over and over, that these are actually the final years of the First Age (of the Children of Iluvatar). I personally don't think that Tolkien Gateway, as probably the most trusted and referenced source of information on anything Tolkien related, should be perpetuating misconceptions.
- Anyway, those are just my two cents on the subject. IvarTheBoneless 15:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think the same, but applying the "more correct" terminology is too complicated, specially when we already have implanted one. But I don't see it as perpetuating misconceptions, but having a convention. It is not the only convention and it is nothing wrong with it as long as we explain it and keep the consistency. --LorenzoCB 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
On your recent edits
Hi! I think you are doing a necessary job revising those "lordship" templates so they have the same terms and style. However, we must avoid creating non-attested terms, such as "Lord of the March of Maedhros" or "House of Oropher"; please, remove that kind of things. Also, as I indicated in one of my edits, there is no need of including references in the infoboxes, unless the indicated info is not present in the article; otherwise it is redundant and doesn't help to keep the infoboxes simple and clean as they should be. --LorenzoCB 17:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks) Okay, I'll fix these edits. --Ar-Zigûr 17:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Done! --Ar-Zigûr 18:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Your edit makes it much more clear; thank you! --Hyarion (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ar-Zigûr. Would you mind explaining in Talk:Gil-galad how your recent edits reverting my own are in alignment with TG:CANON? To be frank: I don't think they are. I'd like to hear your reasoning and discuss lest the issue devolve into edit warring. I've already stated my position on the Talk page. --Mord 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I suppose it's up to Lorenzo to settle a dispute between us. I think you should have state your position about the topic on his Talk page instead the discussion under Gil-galad's article earlier.
Ar-Zigûr (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that discussion about a specific article should go on that article's Talk page - is that wrong? But if you prefer to discuss on Lorenzo's talk page, I'm happy to go there. --Mord 16:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, here you go: User_talk:LorenzoCB#Gil-galad and TG:CANON --Mord 17:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)