Talk:Timeline of Arda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle-earth Wikiproject This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment
A
This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Conventions for Middle-earth dates

I'm bringing this up here because it seems like an appropriately central place, although it doesn't come up so much in this article.

I'd like to establish a Wikipedia standard for Middle-earth dates. Not a mandated format, of course, but a preferred one.

This is what I have come up with so far:

In the Appendices to the The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien consistently uses the format "T.A. 3019", "S.R. 1419", etc. This same format is used in "The Calendars" in Peoples - when it is used at all, and I'll get to that.

I recommend, then, that we adopt that as the preferred format. Wikipedia seems to prefer "AD xxxx" or "xxxx CE" (or "xxxx AD"), without the punctuation, but Tolkien always used it and I don't think the abbreviations FA, SA, FA, and SR are really commonly understood enough to dispense with the clear indication that they are abbrevations. Also, in general, the "A.D. xxxx" style (putting the "A.D." before the year) is older and is still used in academic and formal contexts—surely this was Tolkien's influence for putting the indicator before the date, and I think it's fair to continue with this usage.

It is, of course, probably more important to link to First Age, Second Age, Third Age, or Fourth Age (when appropriate, Shire Calendar for explanation of Shire Reckoning) than to use any particular format. Linking avoids ambiguity of references to "F.A."

However, we also don't need to include these little identifiers every single time we mention a date. Tolkien hardly ever used this format at all—he would more often spell out "Third Age 3019" and then proceed to refer to plain dates, once the time frame had been established. I do think we need to use the abbeviations for purposes of clarity when rapidly jumping between time frames from article to article (since most articles are by definition lacking in immediate context, it's important to specify).

I am not proposing that we go through all Middle-earth articles and change them to match this format—just that we decide on a standard that we will generally try to use. (With a goal towards developing a document that explains conventions for Middle-earth articles, to make their editing more accessible.)

Questions? Comments? Complaints? Suggestions? --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I recommend using a mixed format: for individual dates (as in, not lists): [[Third Age|T.A.]] 3019. For listings, such as lists of rulers of a series of birth and death dates, add a header dates are given in years of the [[Third Age]], unless otherwise noted. to them, and discard T.A. notes. Where Fourth Age years are introduced in these lists, link to them like T.A. 3017–[[Fourth Age|F.A.]] 50.. This is closest to Tolkien's own style without being disruptive. Under no circumstances should individual years be linked. [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 15:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Right—we certainly don't want to confuse Middle-earth dates with "real world" dates! (I suppose a person could link dates to the timeline article if they were really obsessive-compulsive.) You've just summed up rather nicely what I think would make a reasonable policy. Although that I think, within an article, once you have established that dates are, say, Third Age, it isn't necessary to stick "T.A." in front of every single date (at least, Tolkien didn't).--[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed there, if the header is present individual dates do not need the T.A./F.A. prefix. [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 15:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What about Roman numerals? The problem I have with using the initials is that the abbreviation for First Age and Fourth Age (and the Fifth, for that matter) are the same: F. A. Of course, there's less written about the Fourth Age than the First, but and it would usually be obvious by context which age was being referred to, but if the timeline were extended it would cause problems. Sixth and Seventh would both be S. A., which already stands for Second Age. To avoid ambiguity, I'm in favour of the format: III 2931. Any thoughts? --UrbaneLegend 13:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There are very few 'Fourth Age' dates given and none for fifth, sixth, seventh, et cetera. Thus the only real contradiction is between 'F.A.' for 'First Age' vs 'Fourth Age'. As noted, that is rare and usually handled by making the abbreviation a link to the proper article. Roman numerals, or just 1 - 4, would allow clarity, but I'd generally prefer sticking to the abbreviations which are used in the books themselves since there are so few 'Fourth Age' dates to worry about. At that, we could give all 'Fourth Age' dates in the Shire Reckoning (S.R.) to avoid any 'First'/'Fourth' ambiguity. Finally, this is probably the only article on Wikipedia which has both First and Fourth Age dates in it, and they are already separated by section so there is no reason to put an identifier next to each date at all. --CBDunkerson 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Good points. I'm not here to ruffle feathers, I'm just thinking about consistency within the Middle-earth articles on Wikipedia. I'm thinking in terms of aesthetics too - Roman numerals, while not used by Tolkien, (and I totally understand the desire to use the abbreviations that Tolkien used, I'm just discussing alternatives) would be neater than the abbreviations and would imply that the structure of "ages" wasn't just invented for the years of Arda that Tolkien wrote about, but was continuous. Perhaps it would add to the air of historical authenticity that Tolkien created, especially in articles that discuss events across multiple Ages. An example would be the History section of the article on Minas Tirith. As an aside, perhaps it would probably be more appropriate to use elvish numerals rather than Roman... but these aren't found in unicode (yet!).--UrbaneLegend 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EasyTimeline

This page has to be a candidate for an EasyTimeline project. I'm willing to have a go if no-one else is? --Phil | Talk 15:16, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Seems really cool. Realms of Arda also comes to mind as a good project for this! {Ανάριον} 15:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Umbar retaken?

Hi... In the Timeline I can read: 1030 - Siege of Umbar ends, Umbar retaken by Black Númenóreans.
What is the origin of this piece of information? In the Lord of the rings appendix I don't read that. In the article Umbar is said that Númenóreans didn't take the town. So, which is the incorrect information? Thank you and excuse my approximative english. Amon

According to my tolkien companion Umbar was taken by Gondor in 933, and remained under Gondor's control until 1448 when Gondor rebels sailed there to establish their own country. But there are quite a few references to this 1030 on google, Im not sure where it comes from -- Astrokey44|talk 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of real events

I've only just noticed that some time ago, this article's real events section was deleted. While I agree it did not really belong in this article (despite being titled "Sixth and Seventh Ages"), do you think it should be copied into a new article (I can't seem to come up with a name for such an article), or simply left at the archives? — Itai (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings Wikia has preserved it: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_Arda. Robin Patterson 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the purpose of this page?

I am not quite clear on what the purpose is of this page. It seems to me to collect (copy?) large amounts of information that is already available in various places in Tolkien's books, especially the 'Tales of Years' in Appendix B of 'The Lord of the Rings'. The only improvement that this page makes (which it needs to do, IMO, to be anything other than a copyright violation) is to wikify the events and people by linking them to other Wikipedia articles. It also brings together material that is spread throughout different books. But still, I would actually refer people to the books, rather than merely regurgitate stuff already in the books. Carcharoth 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose seems fairly straightforward... it's a timeline. Offhand I don't see anything which was "copied" - events are obviously listed for the same dates that they are listed elsewhere, but the entries aren't copied. Obviously everything on this page 'comes from the books'... but that is true of every Wikipedia article about any and every book ever published. This page compiles information scattered throughout numerous books onto a single page in organized format. It is one of the best timeline's for Tolkien's Middle-earth available anywhere... despite being incomplete and haphazardly constructed. --CBDunkerson 17:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Per CBD. —Mirlen 19:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Having taken a closer look, I agree that this is a good timeline. I think a big improvement would be if a source was provided for each and every event - giving the reader an idea of where the information was sourced and where to go and read about it for themselves. The four notes at the bottom are a good start, but a lot more are needed. For instance, I have never heard of the grandson of Sam Gamgee, called his heir. I would like to go and read the original source. Unfortunately there is no reference that I can follow up. I also diasgree with some of the phrasing of the summaries of events, but again, without these entries being properly referenced, I don't really feel I can change anything. Also, references and footnotes would make clear where one source is being used over another, in some cases quite legitimately (eg. the identification of Durin VII, where the Appendices of LotR differ from the material in one of the History of Middle-earth volumes). The current Wikipedia entry for Durin VII (here) does mention the source, but fails to mention the entry in the LotR appendices. That would be of interest to someone interested in the history of the books and their composition (though I think this was actually an error by the printers of LotR, not the author). But the Durin VII entry is written from the point of view of who the character was and what he did, not the point of view of the story of the genealogy of Durin VII being unclear until that volume of the History of Middle-earth was published. Carcharoth 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ack, that's alot of references. Might get to be a bit overwhelming with the links on every line. :]
I'll try to put in references for some of the more esoteric items. That, along with references to the major timelines, ought to be enough to track down sources.
BTW, 'Harding of the Hill' appears in the family tree for Samwise. --CBDunkerson 00:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite a lot of references, yes! But the reference system should be flexible enough to allow some space-saving tricks. If a whole section is from one book, then a single reference for the section might be enough. Or even an introductory note (or early footnote) saying that most of the material is from Appendix B unless otherwise stated. I'd be interested in helping out with adding references to a lot of the Tolkien articles, but want to make sure I am using the correct format for references. I put a question about this on the Standards page, which I see you've answered already! :-) Do you have all the pages on your watchlist, or do you have a RecentChanges subset for this area?
Thanks for the reference to Harding of the Hill. I see from the family tree that he is indeed Sam's great-grandson (not grandson as I mistakenly said above), but nothing about him being Sam's heir, or when he died. Sources, sources!! :-) Carcharoth 01:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, the 'unless otherwise noted' method is what I was thinking of. The three main timelines listed cover almost everything on the page so I'll put those in for the appropriate sections.
As to Harding... the 'heir' bit is presumably an assumption based on the fact that he descends from the eldest son and is called "of the Hill". As the family name became 'Gardners of the Hill' this suggests that he was the head of the family. I suspect that whoever put in 'heir' is probably right, but it is certainly not directly stated. The date of death is taken from 'Peoples of Middle-earth' (tables S2 & S3), which contains information on the more extensive family trees and background information which Tolkien ultimately cut due to size and time constraints. --CBDunkerson 01:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of the First Age

There's a big problem with the First Age Chronology. The relevant section follows:

545 - The War of Wrath begins

560 - Tuor and Idril sail into the West in the ship Eärrámë

c. 580 - Third Kinslaying: while Eärendil is away the remaining Sons of Fëanor attack the people of the Mouths of Sirion trying to claim the Silmaril; Amrod is slain; Elwing casts herself in the sea but is brought to Eärendil by Ulmo; Eärendil sets out to Valinor to beg for rescue by the Valar

587 - The War of Wrath ends

By this chronology, the War of Wrath begins 35 years BEFORE Earendil sails to Valinor. That just doesn't work :-).

Marquoz 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section from the "Tolkiengateway.net" timeline for comparison:
534 Eärendil searchs for Valinor
538 3rd Kinslaying, Deaths of Amrod and Amras
540 Morgoth controls all of Beleriand
542 Eärendil and Elwing come to Valinor
543 Teleri build great ships for the Host of Valinor
545 Host of Valinor lands in Beleriand
587 Destruction of Beleriand, Death of Ancalagon, Death of Maedhros
Marquoz 00:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they're both wrong / mixing different chronologies together. I'll make some adjustments to the list here for now, but eventually the whole thing will need to be updated to specify the variations rather than just one set of numbers glommed together from Tolkien's disparate texts. --CBDunkerson 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Age

I've corrected the mistaken references to the First Age. A remaining problem is the subdivision for Years of the Sun, a term not actually used by Tolkien in the same way as he uses Years of the Lamps or Y. o/t Trees, but a subdivision very useful and in common use. Technically the Second Age and onward should be below this header. Perhaps the FA part can be renamed to something? -- Jordi·✆ 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien did use the term 'Years of the Sun' to refer to the shorter solar year, but not 'Ages of the Sun'. The various 'overlaps' are an ongoing problem. In the history template we separate the 'Years of the ...' sections from the 'X Age' sections since they are really two overlapping chronological systems. However, that doesn't work as well for a single timeline. I'd hesitate to put the Second Age and later as sub-categories of 'Years of the Sun' because that might help to perpetuate the 'Ages of the Sun' misconception. Yes, the Second Age took place during the 'Years of the Sun'... but that was also during the time still counted by 'Valian Years' in Aman. Also, part of the First Age was before the start of the Years of the Sun and part after. Your suggestion of a different sub-heading for the 'after' period might be clearer... something like 'Years of the Sun in the First Age'. I'll try that. --CBDunkerson 11:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice fix. -- Jordi·✆ 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant links

It may be me, but there's a needless redundancy of wikilinking in this article. Or does the repetition of wikilinking has an exception in cases of timelines? —Mirlen 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since timelines touch on a massive array of topics which are organized by sequence of events rather than 'topic' you can get the same term in a dozen places paragraphs apart from each other. Normally you can just scan upwards to find the earliest instance of the term and click on that, but in a timeline there are alot more topics/links and finding the first instance of a particular term can be difficult. That being said I agree that this article is over-linked. There should be some way of finding a 'happy medium'. Maybe allowing links to be repeated in each section, rather than at each occurence. --CBD 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I like that plan, CBD. (EDIT: Finished from Valian years to First Age. Will see to finish the rest later.) —Mirlen 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarves

  • [before 4585] Khazad-dûm founded by Durin the Deathless
  • [after 4615] Fathers of the Dwarves and first Ents awakened by Eru

Was Dúrin awakened before the others? —Tamfang 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How long is an Age?

Melkor is taken to Valinor in chains and sentenced to serve a term in the Halls of Mandos for three Ages.

How long is an Age? 100 Valian years? Ages of Middle-earth shows each age in the second Era of the Two Trees is 1000 Valian years. Which is right? -Wikianon (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)