User talk:Gamling

From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 4 July 2022 by Ed8r in topic Hoping you are still here

Welcome![edit source]

Hello {{{name}}}, 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!

Welcome[edit source]

Nice to have you on board! Hope you will enjoy editing on Tolkien Gateway! --Morgan 22:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded! A pleasure to have you around Gamling. I don't suppose you still have any pictures of that scroll? --Hyarion 01:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I still have the scroll but I haven't photographed the whole thing. Perhaps that's a project I ought to do. If I do though the next suggestion will be to post it and I'd need some instructions on how and where to do so. Unsigned comment by Gamling (talk • contribs).
Just let us know if you need any help, I'm sure there could be a place for images of the scroll here on TG.--Morgan 17:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome from me too! :) If you need any help in getting to grips with using the wiki software feel free to ask me, Hyarion, Morgan, Mith, Ederchil or Amroth. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  18:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome, hopely you will have a good time here. --Amroth 18:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Letters[edit source]

Look at all those blue links! I just wanted to congratulate you on all your hard work on those letters. The section is an invaluable addition to TG and I'm sure a great many people will appreciate the time you spent on it. --Hyarion 23:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second that Sage 08:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great work, Gamling! It'll be interesting to see your next project on TG! --Morgan 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice Work! I actually didn't see that you were already this far. Now people who haven't purchased the letters (I for example) can finally find out what Tolkien wrote in these :) I also second Morgan about your next peolple (I like beer, by the way :P ). --Amroth 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referencing HoMe[edit source]

If possible, it would be great if you could also add page references to the volumes in The History of Middle-earth. All current US/UK editions (save those published by DelRey) have the same pagination. I personally always try to do this, since it's time-consuming to track specific statements in long chapters or sections.--Morgan 01:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good, I shall include page number references. I didn't know that all those editions used the same numbering. --Gamling 18:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current Projects[edit source]

  1. Adding References: I've been doing this for awhile but I'm proceeding a bit more systematically. I've been working through Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth alphabetically and checking each entry to see if it has any or sufficient references. In many cases the answer is "no" and I add them. I'm currently in the 'D's.
  2. POME Summaries: Very few of the chapters of The Peoples of Middle-earth have summaries. I've written one for "The Prologue" which wasn't even an active page in TG. I am working on the next chapter now but this will be a slowly done project since it takes time to digest and summarize all of the material in each.
  3. Contributing to The Hobbit Project: Due to my time off after my wife's death I did not get in at the start on the updates to the most popular articles about the book that are likely to be read when the movies appear. It seems to me that there are plenty of contributors for these articles so I decided to update some of the less visited pieces that may still see a surge of reading-hits after the movies are released. I've updated "Dori" and "Fíli" so far, removing the "needs sources" and "needs expansion" messages.

Queen of Faery[edit source]

Hello Gamling! We noticed here that TG doesn't have an article for the Queen of Faery (mentioned here) in Smith of Wootton Major. Since I noticed that you've created most of our articles for characters and places in this work, perhaps you'd be interested in creating an article for the Queen of Faery (if you reckon such an article would be useful, and if you have time)? --J.R.R. Tolkien 20:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free, J.R.R. Tolkien, to create the article yourself! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just returned from a vacation trip; I will put this on my list of things to do. --Gamling 22:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Gamling!--Morgan 09:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammatical tense in letters[edit source]

I noticed that you used the past tense when writing the summaries of letters in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (cf. Letter 97 Revision history). Would you agree on changing this to the present tense (which, in my impression, we tend to use for matters appearing in published works)? This if of course not a pressing issue, so I'll will likely only rewrite the tense when there's an occasion to edit a letter.--Morgan 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with changing the tense if that's the standard. In our manual of style under "Tense" there is only the rule that in-universe articles should be in the past tense but since nothing was said about other articles I just kept using past tense for the letters. Perhaps the Manual could be expanded on this point. --Gamling 22:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourth Age years[edit source]

For the year S.R. 1422 in Appendix B it says:

With the beginning of this year the Fourth Age began in the count of years in the Shire; but the numbers of the years of Shire Reckoning were continued.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix B, "Later Events Concerning the Members of the Fellowship of the Ring"

At the end of Appendix E it also says:

This reckoning was in the course of the reign of King Elessar adopted in all his lands except the Shire, where the old calendar was retained and Shire Reckoning was continued. Fourth Age 1 was thus called 1422; and in so far as the Hobbits took any account of the change of Age, they maintained that it began with 2 Yule 1422, and not in the previous March
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix E: Writing and Spelling

This, I think, clearly shows that we can take Fourth Age 1 and Shire Reckoning 1422 to be synonymous. Fourth Age 1 in Gondorian reckoning is, of course, not exactly the same as Shire Reckoning 1422.

I bring this up because I don't think the note that you've been adding to Fourth Age years is accurate. What do you think? Thanks for sorting out the Fourth Age (and other ages too) years by the way, they were in a right state!-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email 

The problem of assigning events to the proper year in the Fourth Age is something I’ve wrestled with quite a bit. As you noted, in both Appendix B and in Appendix D, Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1442, in the view of the Hobbits. However, the Gondorian system established by King Elessar has the beginning of the year shifted by 86 days, as noted in my Note attached to various Fourth Age years, based on the Tolkien’s explanation:

In the New Reckoning the year began on March 25 old style... The Months retained their former names, beginning now with Víressë (April), but referred to periods beginning generally five days earlier than previously.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix D, "The Calendars"

The question is whether the Tolkien Gateway standard should be Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1442 or the Gondorian system and the Hobbits' system vary; events are assigned with an acknowledgement of the variation?
Here is what led me to favor the second standard: If Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1422, then to calculate a Fourth Age year you subtract 1421 from a Shire Reckoning date. In the "Later Events" section of the Tale of Years the entry for S.R. 1484 states:

In the spring of the year a message came from Rohan to Buckland that King Éomer wished to see Master Holdwine once again. … It was heard after that Master Meriadoc came to Edoras and was with King Éomer before he died in that autumn. Then he and Thain Peregrin went to Gondor…
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix B, "Later Events Concerning the Members of the Fellowship of the Ring"

If you subtract 1421 from 1484 then the year for all of these events is Fourth Age 63. However, in the "Note on the Shire Records" in the Prologue there is this comment about the Thain's Book that was used by Findegil in Minas Tirith:

That book was a copy, made at the request of King Elessar…and was brought to him by the Thain Peregrin when he retired to Gondor in IV 64.

In this instance S.R. 1484 is equated with Fourth Age 64 and the difference is only 1420 instead of 1421. Since the "Later Events" entry begins with the words "In the spring…" of 1484 and spring would occur in Víressë (April), I believe that all of the listed events occurred in the Hobbits' year 1484 and in the Gondorians' year 64, which began in March. If the Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1422 system is used then these events must all be put into Fourth Age 63, which contradicts the Prologue's information.
In the same "Shire Records" section it is stated that the most important copy of the Red Book was "completed in S.R. 1592 (F.A. 172)." Again the difference is 1420 instead of 1421. If 1421 were subtracted from 1592 then we would place this event in Fourth Age 171, another contradiction with the text. There are thus two instances which support the dates are at odds between the reckonings system.
However, in the "Later Events" section, there is clear support for the synonymous system. For the year 1541 it is stated that King Elessar died on March 1st, and this is specifically said to be in "Fourth Age (Gondor) 120". March 1st is obviously before March 25th, which is New Years Day in the New Reckoning calendar, and obviously 120 is 1421 less than 1541, rather than 1420.
I think that Tolkien himself got confused and created this mess. When he was rushing to complete the appendices for publication he used the Fourth Age 1 is synonymous with Shire Reckoning 1422 standard for the whole "Later Events" section. But, when he wrote the Prologue he used the different standard that matched what was laid out in Appendix D, the Calendars. Thus we in Tolkien Gateway are left with a contradictory situation.
When I updated the Fourth Age years I used Fourth Age dates when given (such as from Durin's Folk or from Peoples of Middle-earth data). When I could determine in which part of the year an event occurred, such as Samwise's elections to the mayorship on Midyear's Day, I put it into the appropriate year (although I left Aragorn's death in 120 since it was so clearly stated). For the Shire Reckoning dates that had no month or seasonal information I put them in the later year and added the warning that they might be in the previous year. However, since the date of Aragorn's death favors the synonymous system I fully appreciate that it's a mess, which is why I haven’t touched the Timeline/Fourth Age article – I wanted to see what others thought before I went too far.
So King Aragorn, what should be the standard for Tolkien Gateway? I am willing to change the Fourth Age years according to any set standard, but I am leery of putting in an explanation as long as the one above in every Fourth Age year article. I am glad though that you've raised this discussion since I am still in doubt myself.
I wasn't aware of these contradictions between the appendices and the prologue. It's interesting that Hammond and Scull did not correct this in the 50th anniversary edition, but perhaps they had a good reason not to (if they were aware of it). I think this is something that we should discuss at a meeting as I know a few other people have opinions on this matter.--00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with discussing this matter at a meeting and look forward to it.

Linguistic articles[edit source]

Thanks for creating articles about Elvish words! A few thoughts:

  • Elvish words ((and other invented languages) should be in italics, so please use '''''[word]''''' (five colons) for the first mention of the word.
  • Please add {{title|lowercase}} below the reference template.
  • Perhaps also assign the articles to a word class category.

If you have any comments, please let me know! --Morgan 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for these guidelines. When I got started on these articles I was editing earlier articles and the styling was all over the place. I will make the necessary adjustments. --Gamling 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another small point (which you likely already have noticed): something which we really haven't decided is if articles about words should start with a lowercase letter or not. I personally favour to use lowercase (to conform with dictionaries, and to separate these from articles about proper names). Perhaps we need to decide/discuss this in a meeting.--Morgan 20:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with using lowercase letters for word-articles. For example, when I was updating articles about tengwar I didn't know what to do about Vilya. The already existing article was a proper noun discussing the ring Vilya. I added "vilya" the word and tengwa in the body of the article but I think it would be better if we had a disambiguation for "Vilya (ring)" and "vilya" the word/tengwa (all of the tengwa articles start with the name as a word and then discuss the letter). I didn't make these changes at the time because I thought I'd be opening a can of worms for lots of changes to many articles. I agree that this subject would be good for a meeting. --Gamling 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HoMe chapters[edit source]

I noticed you've been working on creating articles for the chapters of The Return of the Shadow, and therefore created a template for displaying these: Template:HoMe6chapters. I'll add links to new chapter articles once these are created, but feel free to edit the template as you like (or just let me know if you have any suggestions).--Morgan 20:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I will continue to add articles and I plan to eventually go through all four books regarding the history of writing The Lord of the Rings.--Gamling 23:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greeting[edit source]

Hello Gamling! I haven't seen you around TG for quite a while -- I hope you are doing fine (and we miss your edits)! --Morgan 00:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still here. You'll see more of me after my son returns to college in mid-August. --Gamling 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTS)

Pleased to see you[edit source]

Just wanted to say that it's good to see you around. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoping you are still here[edit source]

I don't see anything new, but I've come anyway . . . to ask you to see my query on the page for Map of the Shire. Could you check further? --Ed8r 16:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]