User talk:Ar-Zigûr

From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 6 February by Akhorahil in topic Edits on the Witch-king and Khamûl pages

Welcome![edit source]

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:

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)Reply[reply]

First Age Category[edit source]

Please, stop. See First Age#Terminology, User talk:LorenzoCB#First Age. --LorenzoCB 12:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Okay ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Unsigned comment by Ar-Zigûr (talk • contribs).
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

On your recent edits[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks) Okay, I'll fix these edits. --Ar-Zigûr 17:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done! --Ar-Zigûr 18:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gil-galad[edit source]

Your edit makes it much more clear; thank you! --Hyarion (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
OK, here you go: User_talk:LorenzoCB#Gil-galad and TG:CANON --Mord 17:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kingship of the Noldor[edit source]

Both Fëanor and Fingolfin claimed the Kingship of the Noldor at Aman. This is hinted in The Silmarillion, but explained in more detail in The Shibboleth of Fëanor.--LorenzoCB (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Age 402[edit source]

Hi Ar-Zigûr, thanks for all your help! Question, regarding your recent edits to First Age 402. I noticed you changed Bëor to Bregor but did not update the reference where that information comes from. I think that might confuse the readers. Maybe we should include what the source material says, and then add a note to explain the discrepancy, with a reference to the contradicting information? I also noticed the original article says "the sons of Finarfin", but my book actually says "the sons of Finrod". --Hyarion (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Yes, you're absolutely right, it would be much better do not change the name, but make a note instead. I didn't think about it, but I can fix that. Concerning the text of the Annals, under the name Finrod there was actually mentioned Finarfin, because at that time Finrod Felagund beared the name Inglor. --Ar-Zigûr (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thank you! --Ar-Zigûr (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're awesome, thank you! I went ahead and made one minor tweak to include the original name for Finarfin so if the reader looks up the reference, they can understand how we came to that conclusion, hopefully that makes sense. --Hyarion (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind. --Ar-Zigûr (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Art"[edit source]

The images you uploaded today by Isabellerecs are not appropiate for Tolkien Gateway. We had dozens of those filling the infoboxes in the past, and I had to clean them out, because that's not original art, but copypasted dolls and dressed up like in those Barbie games.--LorenzoCB (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New location[edit source]

I was happy to see that you added a new location to your user page. I hope that you did not need to make the passage of the Karelian marshes, which are infested with mosquitos at certain times of the year. In these dark days many men of your age are pressed into the army of the Dark Lord of Mornduin Gorod. --Akhôrahil (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, thank you:) Fortunately, I had spent much of my lifetime in Finland, since my mother is Finnish, and so I always was living between Russia and Finland. I just relocated there permanently about a year ago. --Ar-Zigûr (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discord[edit source]

Hello! Ar-Zigur!

Have you ever cosidered joining our Discord? Most of the decisions (regrettably, I suppose) are made on Discord - not to mention all the interesting discussions, both in terms or lore as well as editing practices.

I for one think you'd make a worthy addition to it, especially in our resent discussions about the timeline of the Grey Annals and the whole YT/YS/FA mess. - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good evening, Ivar! I already joined TG Discord a couple of months ago, but I'm read-only for the most part. Concerning your recent discussion, I think that 'FA' just should be simly replaced with 'YT'. For me, the year labelled as YS obviously means that the year belongs to the First Age, otherwise it would be labelled as 'SA' or 'TA'. However, I'm afraid that's not so obvious for others. -- Ar-Zigûr (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't you take a more active role on Discord - your contributions to the discussions there would be valuable.
I can count the number of active editors on TG on both my hands lol - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if you don't mind my asking, what's your Discord name? - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My nickname is "Agrippa". --- Ar-Zigûr (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YS vs FA[edit source]

Hey, Ar-Zigur - can we first reach a consensus on the YS/FA before we start applying it (as you did in the 'Eol' article)? Reach out on Discord. - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ainur infoboxes[edit source]

Is it really necessary to include the Creation of the Ainur in the 'Valar' and 'Maiar' infoboxes? It goes without saying that the Ainur were created before Ea.

And as far as their age at 'death', how certain are we that all the Ainur entered Ea at the same time? Tulkas for example did not enter Ea immediately - and the other Ainur, while not as late as Tulkas, could've arrived slightly later than VY 1. - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I corrected the note in the article. -- Ar-Zigûr (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansions of Rohan during the Fourth Age by King Éomer[edit source]

I reverted your edits that introduced the expansions of Rohan during the Fourth Age by King Éomer beyond the Isen and the Greyflood (i.e. Enedwaith including Dunland) into the main sections of the Rohan, Éomer and Dunland pages. This information is from two earlier versions (text II and text III) of the section about The House of Eorl from Appendix A, which are different from and in my opinion in conflict with the final published version of Appendix A and which are also not mentioned in the final published version of Appendix B. The final published version says "In Éomer’s day in the Mark men had peace who wished for it, and the people increased both in the dales and the plains, and their horses multiplied. In Gondor the King Elessar now ruled, and in Arnor also. In all the lands of those realms of old he was king, save in Rohan only; for he renewed to Éomer the gift of Ciríon, and éomer took again the Oath of Eorl. " and Appendix B does not mention any conquests by Éomer during the Fourth Age (which would have been very noteworthy events during a King's reign). In the final version there is no mentioning of his people multiplying beyond Rohan and it is explicitly mentioned that Elessar ruled in all the lands of old of Arnor and Gondor except Rohan where he renewed the gift of Rohan to the Rohirrim. Keep in mind that Enedwaith was at least de jure a part of Arnor or Gondor. It would have been problematic to conquer or occupy an area that was at least de jure part of the Reunited Kingdom of Arnor and Gondor without King Elessar gifting more land than the original area of Calenardhon/Rohan to Éomer and his people. Also keep in mind that J.R.R. Tolkien had the opportunity to add content and to make changes to LOTR for the second edition of LOTR to protect the copyright of LOTR in the U.S. and that he added information to Appendix A (e.g. expanded the information of the events leading to the kin-strife). --Akhôrahil (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits on the Witch-king and Khamûl pages[edit source]

You made edits to the Witch-king page and to the Khamûl page, in which you added boxes at the bottom, which imply that they had the title/position "Lord of the Nazgûl" and from which date to which date they had that title/position and that the Witch-king was followed by Khamûl in this title/position and that the Witch-king preceeded Khamûl in that position without any references. There was no information on both pages before those edits that contained those statements. There is no support in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien that Khamûl had the title "Lord of the Nazgûl" or was appointed as the lord of the Nazgûl after the "death" of the Witch-king. Version (i) of The Hunt for the Ring in UT only mentions that when Osgiliath was broken and the bridge was taken at the end of June 3018 the Chieftain of the Ringwraiths lived in Minas Morgul with six companions and that "the second to the Chief, Khamûl the Shadow of the East" lived in Dol Guldur as Sauron's lieutenant with one other. It is speculative what "Chief" and "second to the Chief" refer to and it is speculative that even if it meant that at the end of June 3018 that this automatically led to Khamûl being the new lord/commander of the Nazgûl after the death of the Witch-king instead of some other Ringwraith being appointed ad-hoc by Sauron based upon the then current mood/opinion of Sauron. In short, I believe that those boxes are not necessary and that they are overly speculative and that those changes should be reverted. --Akhôrahil (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]