Jump to content

Talk:Elves in Middle-earth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Elves (Arda))
Good articleElves in Middle-earth has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 12, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

ages, and ages

[edit]
The first Elves were awakened by Eru Ilúvatar near the bay of Cuiviénen during the Years of the Trees. This event marked the beginning of the First Age.

As I understand it, the First Age – more formally the First Age of the Sun – began with the first rising of the Sun and Moon. —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would equate (or indeed conflate) the First Age and the Years of the Sun. As usual with Tolkien, things aren't that simple. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a common misconception, which is actively spread by a few fallacious self-styled Tolkien 'scholars'. No version of the term "Age of the Sun" appears anywhere in Tolkien's writings. There were "Years of the Sun", starting with the first sunrise towards the end of the First Age... but the 'Ages' themselves were consistently referred to as "Ages of the Children of Iluvatar" (starting with the Awakening of the Elves) other than a handful of earlier forms/variations (e.g. 'Ages of the Stars'... because when Varda caused the stars to appear that was what triggered the Awakening of the Elves). Similarly, the First Age is repeatedly stated to be the longest of the three in Tolkien's stories... because, despite containing far fewer 'Years of the Sun', it had begun long before the Sun ever rose. --CBD 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram errors

[edit]
Moved from File talk:Sundering of the Elves diagram.svg
 – —Alalch E. 19:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap A few things that should be corrected if you insist that your diagram is better than mine and should stay as main one:

  • Avari are Moriquendi, Silmarillion states so.
The boxed material was written by a different user and placed in the middle of a prior comment by User:Agnaton, which continues after the box.
Diagram already shows this (dark brown area for Moriquendi includes Avari). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is a continuation of the same comment by the OP which began above the box.
There are two dark brown rectangles and it looks like Moriquendi is on one that Avari is not on. I know it's because of Eldar, but it's not clear at first sight. It also looks like Calaquendi is meant to be correlated with the white rectangle. It seems to me that it is completely illegible for someone who does not know the subject and wants to delve into it. Knowing the subject, I had to think a lot about which rectangle and color is assigned to which name. The first version of your diagram (from 14:22, 19 February 2021) was much clearer than the current one in this regard.Agnaton (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teleri (as one clan, before splitting) are not of Olwe, Elwe and Lenwe, but only Olwe and Elwe, Silmarillion states so.
The boxed material was written by a different user and placed in the middle of a prior comment by User:Agnaton, which continues after the box.
Ok, perhaps best we remove Lenwe (given the next item too). Tolkien is inconsistent here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is a continuation of the same comment by the OP which began above the box.
  • Laiquendi and Silvan Elves are not part of Nandor, but rather descendants of Nandor, especially Laiquendi, who are a splinter clan. You can maybe use arrows to indicate that. Plus, even if you will insist on calling Wood Elves the elves of Lenwe, then still, Green Elves will not be of him.
The boxed material was written by a different user and placed in the middle of a prior comment by User:Agnaton, which continues after the box.
Ok, probably clearest if we just remove Lenwe........... ("........."= to be actioned)
Why would the representation be wrong if they are descendants? It seems appropriate as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is a continuation of the same comment by the OP which began above the box.
  • Mithrim should be changed to Iathrim (Elves of Doriath).
The boxed material was written by a different user and placed in the middle of a prior comment by User:Agnaton, which continues after the box.
Mithrim is canonical; why would Tathrim be better? Tolkien was inconsistent on many such issues, we can't do everything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is a continuation of the same comment by the OP which began above the box.
If your diagram is supposed to say that the Mithrim are part of the Sindar alongside the Falathrim, then fine, but if you want to show that the Sindar split into the Falathrim and the Mithrim, then the Iathrim are missing. Agnaton (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falathrim and Iathrim should be placed above Sindar, as those divisions came first.
The boxed material was written by a different user and placed in the middle of a prior comment by User:Agnaton, which continues after the box.
Not sure what that would mean: the meaning in the diagram is that they are types of Sindar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is a continuation of the same comment by the OP which began above the box.
In that sense ok. Agnaton (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silvan Elves are not Wood Elves of Thranduil, as he was king of only one of Wood Elves kingdoms, and not during the Great Journey.
The boxed material was written by a different user and placed in the middle of a prior comment by User:Agnaton, which continues after the box.
Ok, it may be best if we remove his name........... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is a continuation of the same comment by the OP which began above the box.
  • If you have Úmanyar, then you should also add Amanyar and Avamanyar.
The boxed material was written by a different user and placed in the middle of a prior comment by User:Agnaton, which continues after the box.
We could do that, yes; it's not an error but might be helpful if it can be done unobtrusively.......... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is a continuation of the same comment by the OP which began above the box.
  • Avari and Eldar are not centered.
The boxed material was written by a different user and placed in the middle of a prior comment by User:Agnaton, which continues after the box.
The "Eldar" label is intentionally across the Calaquendi/Moriquendi divide.
Avari, ok, but minor issue to fix........... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is a continuation of the same comment by the OP which began above the box.

PS I don't try to, as you said, edit-war my diagrams. I think they are better than the ones currently presented (at least this one that is chaotic, incomplete and full of errors).--Agnaton (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for discussing now, that's much better. I do not agree with your characterisation of the existing diagrams, which are much clearer and far more comprehensible than yours with less use of symbols. Other editors have actually praised the diagrams privately as the clearest they have ever seen (on or off Wiki). Any demonstrable errors will be fixed promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Elves diagram dispute. —Alalch E. 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the page, just adding an outside perspective here. I think File:The Sundering of the Elves.svg does a really good job of laying out all the key details in an understandable way, and I agree that it is better than File:Sundering of the Elves diagram.svg. However, it does have quite a few spelling/grammar/punctuation errors that would need to be tidied up before it is restored. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm not a native speaker so I'd greatly appreciate any help with spelling/grammar/punctuation that will make my diagram better :) Agnaton (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what we're talking about (in alphabetical order)
NOTE: these diagrams are the latest versions of each. They may change when reloaded. They may no longer correspond to the versions objected to in this topic.
File:Sundering of the Elves diagram.svg
File:The Sundering of the Elves.svg
-- Verbarson  talkedits 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the top row, what is "14/14", "28/56", etc. supposed to mean? Also, as all of the other numbers in this row are multiples of 14, is "Nelyar: 46/74" intended to be 56 rather than 46? The numbers appear to be some sort of ratios, but the intent is entirely unclear to me. Repeating other editors in noting that this diagram has a number of copy-editing issues (punctuation, etc.) that would need to be addressed. Just in general, I find the first of each pair significantly more readable on the laptop that I usually use when reading WP. CAVincent (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ratios are canonical, based on Tolkien's very long and detailed analyses of the Sundering. However I believe they are inherently confusing if presented as numbers or ratios; a thickness-of-line approach (thick line = high ratio, thin line = low ratio) is far more comprehensible. So basically I wouldn't want any diagram used on Wikipedia to present ratios directly, just one of multiple issues with that diagram style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were three clans of unbegotten elves who numbered 144 in total, one had 14 members, one had 56, and the last one had 74. Of the first all went, of the second half went, and of the third 46 went and the remainder stayed. —Alalch E. 09:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and (HA!) I see my math was off on the 74 as well. CAVincent (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word "elves" to make it clearer. Agnaton (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If others are concerned with these looking like fractions, the wording could be changed to "14 of 14 Minyar Elves", "28 of 56 Tatyar Elves", etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Agnaton (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for readability on the laptop I have significantly improved it. Agnaton (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing goes for this two, check out the SVG development section of the first image to see how many svg errors it has:

On "svg errors", this was due to Inkscape (a graphics editor) which seems to generate a range of what are now detected as errors: this was not the case some years ago, apparently because svg error checking or standards have tightened in the intervening time. That is a technical matter, entirely separate from the question for this forum which is graphic clarity and accuracy. I'm perfectly happy to redraw the svg in another tool to achieve freedom from svg errors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I have no problem with the technical issues, but note that on your map the term Moriquendi is mentioned where Noldor also are present (after their return), so it's not fully correct. Agnaton (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elvish Migrations and Kindreds.svg
Sundering of the Elves.svg

Agnaton (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking without prejudice to the accuracy of any of these diagrams, I will comment that the second one in each pair could do with larger text if they are to work as inline diagrams (ie without the reader having to open them separately from the text). The Sundering of the Elves.svg in particular has a bunch of text on the right that appears to include a cite, and might be better placed in a caption. Similar considerations apply to Sundering of the Elves.svg, some of which is hard to read because of text size and contrast issues. -- Verbarson  talkedits 21:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I enlarged captions in the file Sundering of the Elves.svg Agnaton (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find the style of that diagram unlikely to succeed. To add to the issues noted by Verbarson, the decision to present a large amount of (inevitably) small text unwise in a diagram; the use of large amounts of whitespace, with the resulting small headings and smaller descriptions in the boxes automatically leading to unreadability. The use of a very narrow range of tones (and almost no use of colour) to distinguish the differing groups basically fails, as the human eye sees all the similarly-coloured boxes as "ah, all these are much the same stuff, I can't tell them apart", which is exactly the impression we do not want to give.
Also, there is inconsistency in use of italics and style of quotation marks (English style vs German style). The names Oazeldi and Hekeldi are not explained. The phrase "left the march" is strangely spaced, in my browser. Generally it's unnecessarily huge.
The words Cuind, Hwenti and so on are not (afaik) said to be names of tribes, but the cognates of Quendi in various Avarin languages. —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that the current diagrams are clearer by a large margin. The proposed alternatives themselves seem to be problematic in multiple ways, some of which have been noted above. I prepared them carefully with sources to hand. If there are any errors in them, I will repair them promptly this week. I suggest that this is the best way ahead, i.e. we check the existing diagrams again, and fix any issues that may exist. I will start on that this evening (may be able to do a few quick fixes immediately actually), and will welcome notification here of any specific errors, supported by brief mention reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agnaton's type of diagram, genealogical as opposed to your Euler-style is much better. For example when Agnaton says Laiquendi and Silvan Elves are not part of Nandor, but rather descendants of Nandor, especially Laiquendi, who are a splinter clan, this is not an error per se in your diagram, it's the consequence of choosing the model of diagram which you chose which does not fit the purpose that well. His diagram is overall better and needs refinement. —Alalch E. 08:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's purely a matter of opinion; his diagrams are not exactly genealogical in the usual sense, but are complex combinations of approaches, and it shows. Thus in File:The Sundering of the Elves.svg, he combines a division of boxes with two other visual devices: little arrows, and curly brackets; he also attempts to use numerical ratios, which really don't work in a graphic. I've commented on some other issues above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think arrows and braces make much more sense than using colour coding and different line thicknesses to indicate things, especially when the latter approaches pose accessibility issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Agnaton (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As for Chap's diagram It seems to me that it is completely illegible for someone who does not know the subject and wants to delve into it. Knowing the subject, I had to think a lot about which rectangle and color is assigned to which name. Agnaton (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have significantly improved the readability of the diagram. Check it out now. As for "bunch of text on the right that appears to include a cite, and might be better placed in a caption", I've reduced it to the minimum. I've also fixed the issue with use of English style vs German style of quotation marks. The italics were used to distinguish the Falathrim from the other tribes, as they had a separate leader, but were also Sindar and their king was Elwe. I have removed the italics, as they were clearly confusing. As for Avari tribes Christopher Tolkien wrote that "wherever the descendands of *kwendi wre found, they meant not 'Elves in general', but were the names that the Avari gave to themselves". Agnaton (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for "The use of a very narrow range of tones (and almost no use of colour) to distinguish the differing groups basically fails, as the human eye sees all the similarly-coloured boxes as "ah, all these are much the same stuff, I can't tell them apart", which is exactly the impression we do not want to give." I've changed the colours. Agnaton (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, you should extend Vanyar, Noldor, and Faldari, and known Avari tribes (add "unknown other tribes"), down to the lower edge of Sindar, and extend Falathrim and Nandor down to the lower edge of Iathrim. This will convey the information which groups are contemporaneous at a given point in time. Your diagram could be interpreted as, say, Vanyar being extinct during the time of, say, Sindar. —Alalch E. 14:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That actually is a superb idea! Thanks! Done it :) Agnaton (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, thank you. I think that your diagram is perfect now. —Alalch E. 14:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Agnaton (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elves_in_Middle-earth&oldid=1247889675"