Talk:Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth

From Tolkien Gateway

Should this be added to Sindarin Category? --Quidon88 12:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Guess so; it is Sindarin, after all. -- Ederchil 12:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Very excited to see this[edit]

I ~just~ saw this page on the To-Do list. I would be honored to research the ever-loving-stuff out of this page. It's a 34 page passage (p. 303 - 366) with all the notes so it will take time because I doubt just a summary without explicit, page references will fly here. I really thought it already existed somewhere else on TG. I thought that I certainly saw it before. Maybe I was looking at a different wiki. It was months ago, so I don't rightly remember.

Although it is only 34 pages, it is a very dense passage with a lot of information about the Edain and the Eldar. How detailed do you want it? There is more preamble and explanation than there is story, but the story part is awesome. Also, is the intro already done because of the summary blurb that's in place?

I'm going to copy and build this page in a Sandbox because I've never worked on so many page features before. I rather not hot edit my mistakes and half-dones to the gen. public. No ETA on how long this will take, but I definitely want this on my projects list. --Elf-esteem 03:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, backing up here, I looked at another chapter page for Morgoth's Ring and it was literally just the blurb. The other was by Woolly Mammoth, a banned user, and its expanded format was firmly critiqued as unacceptable. And then I read the history on this page and it, the layout, seemed to be created by him. So, should I scrap this project because it does not suit TG's vision? It would be a hell of a lot of work to fill out each category as listed. So, stop me before I start if it isn't wanted/needed. --Elf-esteem 04:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It's really up to you about how detailed you'd want to go; our articles on chapters in The History of Middle-earth are all pretty sketchy at the moment. I would say that in terms of structure you do not need to summarise all the components of the chapter (e.g. You don't need a section for the "Glossary"). I would say we need a summary of the text, a history of its composition, an an analysis of the text (that is, obviously, not your own analysis). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Debate with commentaries[edit]

I am concerned that the feedback is just going to be: it's too long. However, it was a major and highly complex writing. Without making sweeping generalizations, I did not know what else to cut out without leaving parts unexplained or disconnected. It could probably be worded better though. The summarizing led to me doing a lot of he said and then she said or cited paraphrasing.

I remember reading somewhere that events from Middle-earth need to be written in past tense for TG, but the whole debate was written in present tense. So, there might still be tense issues in there. I could not switch the tense until after I was done summarizing the flow of the argument.

Honestly, I've only ever been truly interested in the last 3 pages of the debate because Aegnor and Andreth's story is so sad and beautiful. That's why I wanted to do this. But, one has to wade through the whole debate to get to the awesome story part (yay, sad romance!). Now that it is done (pending revisions), I deem that this project was conceived in ignorance and not in courage. :P I had no idea what I was in for. --Elf-esteem 23:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference codes[edit]

Studying another document from this section of Morgoth's Ring I saw this used as a source: MR|P4i - which I understood as Morgoth's Ring, Part 4, Author's Commentary

I experimented with other combos and discovered: P4a - intro P4c - debate P4e - notes P4g - tolkien's commentary P4k - glossary P4m - draft

It's not all the parts needed, but every other letter didn't link to anything. I still do not fully understand the reference coding, but would it be better if I tried to break the references down into parts? Right now it's just 40+ references to Part 4 with page numbers. I could not find a letter that linked to C. Tolkien's commentary. But, I think that's the only one I'd be missing. --Elf-esteem 18:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:MR --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you! --Elf-esteem 21:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Separated articles[edit]

I think it would be helpful to have the Commentary (with its notes) and the Appendix (The Converse of Manwë and Eru, which is missed here) in separated articles, and include them in Template:HoMe10chapters, even if Christopher didn't showed them in the Contents Index of MR.--LorenzoCB 15:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the benefit of doing that? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 09:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Lightening the long article, showing the Commentary as a work of its own (which it is), linking better the Athrabeth with the Tale of Adanel and the Converse and making those two texts be easier to locate within the book.--LorenzoCB 11:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)