From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 28 December 2023 by JR Snow in topic Etymology section

Especially after looking at the review on the Yrch website, I would like to suggest again that we automatically direct to the primary character of a certain name with a note at the top to reach a disambiguation page for the others, like is done in Wikipedia. So anyone searching for Aragorn would go automatically to Aragorn II. I know that last time this was brought up it was decided against, but I would like to renew the suggestion now. --Narfil Palùrfalas 20:30, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

We seem to be fairly stubborn (in a good way) about our stance on this issue. Unfortunately it seems to be fairly even sides and I think we will just have to wait until more contributors with opinions on the matter come along. I'm willing to be swayed but at present I still believe treating characters and articles equally is a better approach.
When I see someone searching for Aragorn I see fans who aren't aware that Aragorn of the Fellowship is really the second, thus they learn new information. Then I see the scholars looking for information on the first Aragorn, and they are able to locate it more quickly than being redirected to an article they don't wish to be at, and having to click yet another link to find what they are looking for.
Which reminds me, this article should contain information on not only what Aragorn means in other langauges, but how J.R.R. Tolkien derived it. --Hyarion 22:39, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
I agree with Hyarion on no automatic redirects. Major characters are in bold, so the uneducated user should be able to find what they are looking for without any problems. --Ebakunin 23:14, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
I dislike automatic redirects as a whole. A more useful and somewhat related feature would be to make linking etc non-case-sensitive. --Hands of a healer (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Titles box[edit source]

I have several issues with the information in the box in the titles section.

  1. The House of Telcontar is not a cadet branch of the House of Isildur, for cadet means junior in the sense that there is a senior branch in existence simultaneously, at least in the beginning. The House of Isildur is, however, in the quite unusual position that the senior branch has always continued, no junior branch ever taking over as new senior branch, and the House of Telcontar is merely the continuation of that one senior branch.
  2. The box suggests that the Fellowship of the Ring ended on 16 February, T.A. 3019, or at the very least that it became leaderless at that point. Yet the article on the Fellowship itself correctly states that it was only broken, not disbanded on 26 February, T.A. 3019, being disbanded by King Elessar in the chapter Many Partings at Isengard (that being on 22 August, T.A. 3019). This clearly implies Aragorn was up to that time still, or again, its leader.
  3. ‘House of Telcontar’ is used as a title, which it isn’t, the title should be ‘Head of the House of Telcontar’.

I think all these are errors that should be corrected. — Mithrennaith 01:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you at point 2 and 3. But I don't really understand what you mean with point 1. --Amroth 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The House of Telcontar cannot be a cadet branch of the House of Isildur, because there never was any branch of the House of Isildur senior to it. It never split off from the House of Isildur, it is the continuation of the most senior branch the House of Isildur ever had. — Mithrennaith 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve got two further points:
4. The previous King of Arnor was not Arvedui, 1046 (actually 1044) years earlier, but Eärendur, 2158 years earlier.
5. As the vacancy of the northern kingship since Arvedui, the vacancy of the kingship of Gondor since Eärnur has been miscalculated as if Aragorn commenced his rule in 3021 instead of 3019: it should be 969 years, instead of 971.
Mithrennaith 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to change all of these! The information in the current box I just copied from the previous one without thought. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I remember good then the descendents of Argeleb I claimed to be the King of Arnor. --Amroth
It's a common misconception (often peddled by editors of this site), but they claimed to be Kings of Arnor, but were still Kings of Arthedain. In Appendix A it lists them as "Kings of Arthedain", and not Arnor. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But Arthedain and Cardolan accepted it, and Rhudaur was destroyed. --Amroth
And still, in all lists, as in Appendix A I ii and in The Heirs of Elendil, they are listed as "Kings of Arthedain".
I think I will change these points. I’m just wondering where else ‘cadet branch’ may have been misused (think I saw another case pass by when I was on a ramble checking life-spans of Dúnadan Kings). — Mithrennaith 19:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aragorn: Other Names[edit source]

In The Two Towers, Éomer the Third Marshal of the Riddermark calls Aragorn "Wingfoot". I was wondering if that could be added to the list of Other Names for Aragorn. Thanks! Unsigned comment by Cecelia Kjolsrud (talk • contribs).

It's already there, but we appreciate your concern! --DoctorWellington 23:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Unsigned comment by Cecelia Kjolsrud (talk • contribs).

Beard[edit source]

From NOME:

> A note was sent to Patricia Finney (Dec. 9/72), answering a question about beards, that mentioned some of the male characters which she and a friend did not imagine as having beards. I replied that I myself imagined Aragorn, Denethor, Imrahil, Boromir, Faramir as beardless. This, I said, I supposed not to be due to any custom of shaving, but a racial characteristic. None of the Eldar had any beards, and this was a general racial characteristic of all Elves in my "world". Any element of an Elvish strain in human ancestry was very dominant and lasting (receding only slowly — as might be seen in Númenóreans of royal descent, in the matter of longevity also). The tribes of Men from whom the Númenóreans were descended were normal, and hence the majority of them would have beards. But the royal house was half-elven, having two strains of Elvish race in their ancestry through Lüthien of Doriath (royal Sindarin) and Idril of Gondolin (royal Noldorin). The effects were long-lasting: e.g. in a tendency to a stature a little above the average, to a greater (though steadily decreasing) longevity, and probably most lastingly in beardlessness. Thus none of the Númenórean chieftains of descent from Elros (whether kings or not) would be bearded. It is stated that Elendil was descended from Silmarién, a royal princess. Hence Aragorn and all his ancestors were beardless.

Is there art of Aragorn without a beard that would be more suitable for the main image? Fornad (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominate this one, as per the Discord discussions. - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. JR Snow (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed! Fornad (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology section[edit source]

I propose we clean up the Etymology section; after giving the etymology/meaning from Tolkien himself, I think it is unnecessary to include various fanon theories. I guess they have some nerdy interest, showing how the fandom interpreted the name all these decades before the recent publication of the etymology, but I think it is outside the scope of the encyclopedic article.

Eg. saying that Ruth Noel proposed some meaning, ignoring Tolkien's statement, is both a useless information, and a criticism of RN, unrelated to Aragorn. Sage (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I absolutely agree.
I feel it is redundant to include fan theories regardless of whether or not it was later revealed Tolkien gave an origin. JR Snow (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]