Talk:Thingol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This sentence from the article is awkward: "Thingol did not wish for the two to wed, as he thought the world of his daughter, but disliked Men." It looks like the author forgot something after "the world of his daughter". I can't tell what was intended. Eric119 00:48 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

I think it is "he thought the world of his daughter, not describing his daughter's world, but that he thought the world of her. Get it? DryGrain 21:52, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Eric119 07:17, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Formating[edit]

Wall of text, then the box with Contents. It seems very strange to me: shouldn't it be short introduction, box with Contents, then the actual contents? EDIT: And why was the "mightiest of the Eldar save Fëanor only" addition been removed?Hackeru (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text breaks added Feanor replaced and sourced.Tttom1 (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Tree[edit]

Reverted to House of Thingol family tree as more relevant to article than other.Tttom1 02:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'more relevant'? And why is template 'Elwë' tree about Elmo and not Elwë (Thingol)? The latter preserves everything from the 'House of Thingol' tree as it stood in the article, and naturally is the same tree - only tweaked so that Nimloth descent is not torn in two. Consequently Elmo appears in center; whether Elu Thingol's line is to be on the left or right in my opinion is irrelevant. If you disagree, edit the template (which is also to be used in Celeborn, Olwe etc. articles). I see you also hold that the tree of Half-elven is needless together with Thingol tree/template, but what was the purpose of clearing Template:Half-elven??? It is used in 19 articles and is extremely important there. Súrendil 06:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its more relevant because it puts the emphasis where it belongs and in the right order with Thingol to the left, Elmo is the youngest brother and both Olwe and Elmo are subordinate to Thingol and Melian. There's no need for both as you assert but I don't mind both either. The article is about Thingol and therefore his house and not the descendants of Olwe Elmo Thingol, as such the original family tree was and is clearer and perfectly adequate. That the half-elven is used in 19 articles is great and could even be in Thingol as a secondary tree. Tweaking Nimloth is unneccessary and introduces a distortion of the actual family hierachy to 'tweak' a minor template layout problem.Tttom1 03:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Half-elven, while I personally don't mind its there it takes a lot of room and is of secondary importance to this article and secondary to most of the articles its in and probably should be removed from those. While it was one of the few family tree templates it was better than no tree. But trees should at least be tailored to the article and the occurance of Half-elven should be trimmed and replaced with appropriate trees. A number of people tweaked House of Thingol and made it quite good and it too is used in other appropriate articles, but not elsewhere where it is of minor relevance. I see no wat around the Nimloth problem that doesn't make a greater problem at the top of the tree. You might ask some other editors and use the talk page before you revert.Tttom1 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree one template is enough and, as you did, I removed Half-elven as redundant.Tttom1 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've edited the template so that Thingol is to the left. Now it is the same tree as was originally on the article, but with lines centered and layout tweaked. Maybe now you will intoduce it into the article? Súrendil 13:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Done. Twins in same boxes looks a bit awkward, its clear to us because we know they're twins. Doesn't bother me that much, others may feel differently.Tttom1 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oropher[edit]

Apparently Thingol is an ancestor or relitive of Oropher, probably a cousin. Therefore legolas is a distant relitive of Arwen, therefore making them distant kin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.135.97 (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth[edit]

Where does that date "YT 1050" come from? I've never read anything about it nor have I heard people mention any reliable date of Elu's birth. I for one would even go as far as to count him among the first elves who awoke at Cuivienen. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yupp, he was one of the first to awaken. Out of the Three (Ingwë, Finwë and Elwë), Thingol alone had seen the Light of Valinor but remained until his end in Middle-Earth. Says something about it in the Silmarillion too, so his date of birth is... eh, well, the Awakening of the Eldar. Hackeru (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication in text that he was among first awakened - just that he was one of the ambassador to Valinor.Tttom1 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Loback illustrations[edit]

Why are these cheeseball illustrations being used? There must be something better. They are a bad artist's attempt to do medieval illumination style paintings. 70.53.108.40 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one like Loback's style, it's got a sort of "elvishness". There are of course other illustrations from various Tolkien artists, but most of them are copyrighted and may not be used on Wikipedia. And last but not least, are you a professional art critic to make such statements? De728631 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make any difference to you were I a professional critic? No. I could be Robert Hughes and it wouldn't matter to you. Apart from aesthetics, what makes the illustration above all unnecessary is that it is not by J.R.R. Tolkien and gives the casual reader an inauthentic impression of one of his characters. Understand? 70.53.108.40 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether he's a professional critic. His only argument is that he doesn't like them. I'm afraid I don't find the logic compelling. Elphion (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That quite obviously isn't my point. They aren't by J.R.R. Tolkien. They will give a casual reader the mistaken impression that Loback's idea of the character reflects Tolkien's own vision. Does it? No. You could put illustrations of the same character by someone whose style I do like (e.g. Howe) and I would make the same (valid) argument. By the way, the aesthetics of it are something to be considered, as to many the Loback illustrations (especially this one) have a "Warhammer"-like, cartoonish style which apart from everything else might, in the eyes of a casual reader, lower The Lord of the Rings to that level. 70.53.108.40 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He/She is missing the point of wikipedia completely. The fact that multiple other people have done work based on LOTR is what helps give it notability, should we delete the film adaption articles because they are not by Tolkien and some of there content if find aesthetically distastefully? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty lame argument. Take some of the other LOTR articles. In the Galdalf article there are images of him from the Bakshi animated movie and the Jackson live action films. But they do not lead off the article. They do not put a picture of McKellan at the top and say "This is Gandalf." The photo of him is under Adaptations. In the end my personal dislike the artist's style isn't the point. This should have been obvious. 70.53.108.40 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again removed irrelevant, unnecessary, inaccurate cheeseball illustration is not a valid reason for deleting an image, by all means argue that the image should be moved into the adaptations sections or provide reasoning why the image is a non-notable example and should be deleted, don't start an edit war and then change your reasoning for your edits at a later date, that just gets peoples backs up and makes you appear trollish regardless of whatever reasons you beleive we should know Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Thingol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful comments. All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • For the record, I have added a couple of links to the references for ease of verification.
    • Noted.

Lead[edit]

  • I would indicate which figure in the Loback illustration is Thingol.
    • Done.
  • Several of the "aliases" in the infobox are really titles.
    • Removed.
      • That works. They could also have been changed to titles (the infobox supports such a parameter). TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depicted as the King of Doriath, King of the Sindar, High-king and Lord of Beleriand – "depicted as"?
    • Removed.
  • King of the Sindar – I would write "Sindar Elves" for clarity.
    • Done.
  • Alone among the Elves, he married a Maia, the angelic being Melian. – I might rephrase to describe the Maiar, rather than Melian, as angelic.
    • Done.

Etymology and characteristics[edit]

  • Quenya and Sindarin should be noted as constructed languages.
    • Done.
  • I would drop the second sentence, move the first sentence to the "Analysis" section, and add some of Flieger's analysis of the name.
    • Done.

Fictional history[edit]

  • as ambassadors of Valinor – ambassadors to Valinor, no? Also gloss.
    • Done.
  • one of the Silmarils – I would gloss and try to make the significance a bit clearer ("priceless jewels" or similar).
    • Done.
  • the Noldor city of Nargothrond – should probably mention that this is after the fall of Nargothrond.
    • Done.
  • The Sons of Fëanor, who had sworn a terrible oath to recover the Silmarils on behalf of their father – I think this needs even more context to be understandable to someone not already familiar with the story of Fëanor and the Silmarils. The two main things that need to be mentioned are that the Silmarils were created by Fëanor and stolen by Morgoth. This could be added here, or in the preceding paragraph in the context of Beren recovering one of the Silmarils. I think the latter might work better.
    • Done, in the preceding paragraph.

Analysis[edit]

  • This section switches from the present tense ("Flieger writes", "Burns states") to the past tense ("Evans observed", "Coutras drew") towards the end.
    • Fixed.
      • Some in-universe details are still given in the past tense (e.g. "he turned away from the Light", "brought about the downfall") while others are in the present tense (e.g. "Sindarin becomes the most prevalent Elven tongue", "when he receives the Silmaril", "they are each betrayed"). TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed.
  • in terms of plot they make sense in terms of his politics and dynastic needs – a bit repetitive, phrasing-wise.
    • Fixed.
  • the Kinslaying at Alqualondë perpetrated by the Noldor on the Teleri – definitely at least link Kinslaying for context, and perhaps expand.
    • Linked and glossed.
  • perpetrated by the Noldor on the Teleri – this would be a good point to remind the reader that Thingol himself is one of the Teleri. Flieger does.
    • Done.
  • Robley Evans, writing in Mythlore, draws a parallel between Thingol and the Noldor – my reading of what Evans writes is that the parallel is not with the Noldor collectively, but with Fëanor specifically. I would keep all of Evans' analysis in one place.
    • Done.
  • part of the tightly-woven trap of The Silmarillion – the meaning of this is not readily apparent.
    • Reworded.
  • There are three Hidden Elvish Kingdoms including Doriath; these were founded by three relatives, including Thingol; and they are each betrayed and destroyed; they are each penetrated by a mortal Man, again all relatives, in Doriath's case Beren; and the sense of Doom, which Shippey glosses as "future disaster", hangs heavy over all of them in the tale. – this is a bit rough to read.
    • Reworded.
  • I would list the destroyed Elvish cities/Kingdoms in the order of their destruction and add in what year of the First Age they were destroyed. If sourceable, I would also add the year each Man entered them.
    • Reordered. I've avoided putting in dates, as it comes across as offputtingly in-universe and redolent of Tolkien fandom, not to mention introducing a whole new level of detail and complexity. But listing in order of destruction is certainly helpful.
      • Alright. I think the proximity in in-universe time lends further weight to Shippey's argument, but I see your point. It would perhaps be a better fit in some other (as-yet unwritten?) article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • noting that she resembles – MOS:SAID. Resemblance is in the eye of the beholder.
    • Fixed.
  • Evans observed – MOS:SAID. This goes beyond mere observation.
    • Fixed.
  • the Doom of Mandos – gloss.
    • Done.
  • Coutras drew attention – Coutras is restating the analysis of Rawls and Hopkins.
    • Reworded and cited both.
      • Scholars of literature including Melanie Rawls and Lisa Hopkins draw attention to Thingol's depiction is not entirely correct. Coutras compares what Rawls says about Thingol and Melian to what Hopkins says about Tuor and Idril. TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rewritten.
  • Thingol's later depiction as a prideful king – "later" depiction?
    • Removed.
  • New comment: Elu, ends in "u", which resembles the negative Ú- in "Úmanyar" – I don't find this comparison in the second edition of Splintered Light. Is it in the first edition? TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the 1983 edition here. Hm, I'm not surprised she removed this in later versions, it does seem doubtful: after all, "Eru" ends in "u". Let's cut it.

Summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See my comments above.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    See my comments above.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig gives a couple of false positives where the copying was clearly done in the opposite direction, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I'm missing Flieger's analysis of the name. Since added.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No obvious neutrality issues. Opinions are clearly distinguished from facts and attributed as appropriate.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All media use licenses that are acceptable per WP:CFAQ.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some final copyediting of my own, and will now promote the article. Well done! TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thingol&oldid=1200283208"