Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Talk:Year of the Trees 1481

Discussion page of Year of the Trees 1481
Latest comment: 18 September 2022 by Mord
Want to chat about Tolkien in real-time?
Join our Discord server for discussions, collaboration, and a vibrant community!

I propose this article for deletion, or at the very least it needs a big caveat added to it. The article on the origins of Gil-galad is largely based on the information about the character from the mid to late 1960s, in which he is the son of Orodreth and his mother is of Sindarin origin, meaning he was definitely born in Middle-earth.

The date given in NoME for the birth of Gil-galad, as well as most of the dates in that book, seem like Tolkien brainstorming ideas on paper, and as such should be taken with a grain of salt. Not to mention that the conception of time and Valian Years relating to the vast majority of these dates is completely different from the one that TG generally adopts regarding the Years of the Trees, which is based mostly on the Annals of Aman, and the ~9.5:1 ratio of a sun year to a Valian year (as opposed to the 144:1 ratio in the majority of NoME). - IvarTheBoneless 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree as I do not think that we need to choose between the NOME and the Annals of Aman. We could have both. The YT as told in the Annals, as well as the YT as told in the NOME. These articles could have something similar to an Other Versions of The Legendarium section found in other articles. That is what I propose. That way, readers can choose between which version they accept. However, the Annals version should be mentioned first in the article and the NOME second in the article since the Annals version is what is generally accepted. But overall, we should have both. Also, I think that you should remove your deletion request until it is decided. Dour1234, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The date still has a legitimate place in the wiki, it is not fanon or similar. It should be indicated that it is accoding to a particular version. --LorenzoCB 10:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do believe it deserves a place in the wiki, I disagree that it deserves a mention on the wiki timeline. And the reason I disagree is that the dates in the NoME are so all over the place that it does a disservice to any reader of the wiki who isn't willing to spend countless hours decoding and cataloging every single date (and there are many!) that Tolkien put on paper in that book - and as I said before, this is Tolkien merely thinking on paper and changing his mind every other sentence.
For example, look at the talk page on Celebrian and the many, many different dates given there in just one single book! - IvarTheBoneless 13:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much of the dates given in NoME are also incompatible with the Annals of Aman based timeline on the wiki. - IvarTheBoneless 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ivar on this. IMO the Y.T. 1481 date belongs in OVOTL for Gil-galad, but the year itself doesn't merit its own page. --Mord 23:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. We should just put that this is the date of Gil-galad's in TNOME as we should not prioritize one version over another in a timeline. We should only document, not create our own canon. We should decode these things for the reader. Dour1234 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ivar and Mord. Apart from that the text from Dour1234 on that page appears a it clumsy. The title The Nature of Middle-earth was not chosen by J.R.R. Tolkien. The actual source that was written by Tolkien has a different title. --Akhorahil (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't add every alternative date provided in OVOTLs into the timeline. I understand Gil-galad has to be an exception in many ways, but purely from an organizational standpoint, this would be total chaos. I still move to delete. Do we have a wiki policy for a vote on issues such as this? --Mord 16:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]