Talk:Thingol

[[Category: good articles|Thingol]]

Untitled

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

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)

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

Family Tree

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

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)

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)

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)

I agree one template is enough and, as you did, I removed Half-elven as redundant.Tttom1 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oropher

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)

Birth

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)

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)

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)

Tom Loback illustrations

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• Sketch Map of Beleriand.svg

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