Talk:Elves of Rivendell

Want to chat about Tolkien in real-time?

Join our Discord server for discussions, collaboration, and a vibrant community!

Join our Discord

Should we need such an article?

The phrase "Elves of/from Rivendell" appears in many articles, and I guess in the texts too, but there is no such article. I know that the Elves of Rivendell might not consist a "people", that is, an ethnic or cultural entity (like the Vanyar, the Gondolidrim or the Gwaith) but they do have some history. Sage 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The term "Elves of Rivendell" does not appear in H, LOTR (FR, TT, RK or the appendices), UT, S or PM. It is a term that is only used on Tolkien Gateway. --Akhôrahil (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Does this need its own page?

The content of this article is good, but it seems like it could just be rolled into the Rivendell article. MOONBOLT (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The content of the article is far from "good". There are many pages on Tolkien Gateway about places and about the population of those places (e.g. Rohan, Rohirrim, Gondor, Gondorian, Dale, Men of Dale, Moria, Dwarves of Khazad-dûm, etc.). There is usally quite a lot of overlap, but that has been a practice for many years. The main problem is that the lack of quality of the page. It contains erroneous statements (e.g. that there was a second siege of Rivendell when Angmar destroyed Arthedain) and the references are not detailed enough and lack page numbers for the 50th anniversary edition of LOTR. --Akhôrahil (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. When I said good, I was speaking to the fact that having such information is useful. I hadn't done a deep dive into the quality of the page and references yet. I know that it needs expansion, I just wanted to figure out whether the article was necessary before people put more work into it. MOONBOLT (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that you added the "unnamed" tag after I had pointed out that term "Elves of Rivendell" does not appear in H, LOTR (FR, TT, RK or the appendices), UT, S or PM on this talk page. I also appreciate that you found and corrected a typo in "besiegers". What surpises me is that you added a page number to an existing reference to Appendix A I (iii) after the statement about a second siege of Rivendell, although I had already pointed out on this talk page that this statement is erroneous and although the two pages that you cited do not contain a statement about a siege of Rivendell by forces of Angmar. Apart from that, the page numbers for this particular attack from Angmar on Arthedain are pp. 1041-2 instead of pp. 1040-1 in the 50th anniversary edition of LOTR. Did you not read the pages that you inserted as references? It would also have been helpful for users who do not have access to a printed 50th anniversary edition of LOTR to provide more detail in the reference where within the section of Appendix A the sources for the statements can be found (e.g. by adding ", entry for King Arvedui" before ", pp. [page numbers]" and ", entry for King Eärnil II" before ", p. [page number]". In addition, you did not add years and page numbers for two references to Appnendix B (e.g. "entry for the year [year], p. [page number]"). I will correct the content of the page and add and refine references. --Akhôrahil (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"Arveleg son of Argeleb, with the help of Cardolan and Lindon, drove back his enemies from the Hills; and for many years Arthedain and Cardolan held in force a frontier along the Weather Hills, the Great Road, and the lower Hoarwell. It is said that at this time Rivendell was besieged"

Was this not the siege they were referring to? LotR p. 1040 MOONBOLT (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The sequence of sentences on the page implied that the Elves of Rivendell were subjected to a second siege by Angmar, because the founding of Angmar and the coming of peace to an end was mentioned in the sentence before and because it is said that the Elves of Rivendell broke the sige with the help of Elves of Lindon and the Galadrim. While it is correct that there is a statement on p. 1040 that reads "It is said that at this time Rivendell was besieged.", this statement does not identify the besiegers. It is possible that they were forces from Angmar, but they may also have been somebody else (some other allies of Angmar or evil residents of the Misty Mountains). Page 1041 does not contain a statement that the Elves of Rivendell "broke" the siege. Page 1041 contains the statement "It is said that Angmar was for a time subdued by the Elvenfolk coming from Lindon; and from Rivendell, for Elrond brought help over the Mountains out of Lórien." It is possible that the Elves broke the siege of Rivendell, but it is also possible that the besiegers abandoned the siege on their own decision, because they wanted to retreat beofre getting caught between a relief force and the besiegend Elves of Rivendell. We only know that Angmar was subdued by those Elves, but not how and where Angmar was subdued. It may have been just ouside of Rivendell at the siege line or it may have been after fleeing from there at a different location. The statement that Glorfindel led a force from Rivendell to the Battle of Fornost was not correct. Page 1051 in Appendix A mentions "great battle on the plain between Nenuial and the North Downs" (called the "Battle of Fornost" in Appendix B in the entry for 1974 of the Third Age), that the Witch-king "fled northwards, seeking his own land of Angmar. Before he could gain the shelter of Carn Dûm the cavalry of Gondor overtook him" and that "a force under Glorfindel the Elf-lord came up out of Rivendell". So the Elves of Rivendell did not go to the Battle of Fornost, but to a place further northwards in the direction of Angmar, the Ettenmoors where a second battle took place ("The Witch-king defeated at the Battle of Fornost, and pursued to the Ettenmoors." in Appendix B TA 1974). I wrote "the two pages that you cited do not contain a statement about a siege of Rivendell by forces of Angmar" (emphasis added now by me). As can be seen from my long edit, a lot was changed and detailed references were added. --Akhôrahil (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Consolidating References

After the recent edit, could the references be consolidated? Any time I've seen the timelines in the Appendices being referenced, it's usually after the year has already been referenced in the article. After knowing what year is being mentioned, I think the page number in the Appendices is the only thing necessary to find the entry being cited. I don't think that we need separate references to indicate what year is being mentioned as long as it has already been stated in the article.

For example, I think that entries for Appendix B, "The Second Age" can all be consolidated into one reference and instead use the "rp" template to indicate what pages they're on.

Instead of:

Around the year S.A. 750, the realm of Eregion was founded

More than 1,700 years later, in S.A. 3431 he hosts of Gil-galad and Elendil of Arnor joined together in the Last Alliance of Elves and Men and journeyed to Rivendell where they spent three years to prepare for war before continuing their march to Mordor.

We could do:

Around the year S.A. 750, the realm of Eregion was founded^:1083

More than 1,700 years later, in S.A. 3431 he hosts of Gil-galad and Elendil of Arnor joined together in the Last Alliance of Elves and Men and journeyed to Rivendell where they spent three years to prepare for war before continuing their march to Mordor.^:1083-4 MOONBOLT (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No. "Consolidating" references is more inconvenient for readers and requires them to expend more reading time switching between the text in the main sections and the references. If readers do not have acces to a 50th anniversary edition of LOTR with page numbers or to an edition with compatible page numbers, the most detailed subdivisions on a page (e.g. the entry for a King or Steward or the entry for a year of an age) are necessary to find the source. In addition, even if the text already contains the year or the name of a king or stewards not every reader can immediately memorize this information from the text and when they go to the reference and do not remember it, they have to go back to the text to look up this information. There is a lot of information on pages in the Appendices. Even with a compatible page number having the readily available entry for a year or an entry for a King or Steward makes it easier to find the source on the page. I have practised it like this on many pages. --Akhôrahil (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Should Lhûn be spelled "Lune" in this article?

I think it might be better to spell Lhûn "Lune" as that is how it's spelled in the LotR. As far as I can tell, it's only referred to as Lhûn in the Index. MOONBOLT (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)