Henneth Annûn Story Archive

Given the length of the old thread, I thought it was time for a new one. I will post announcements looking for vict... er, naive users of the resources section to give us feedback. We should identify some sample entries of various types for them to look at and evaluate - please suggest! Lyllyn

 

My Easterlings entry is about half done... would somebody mind looking at the History section and seeing if it's clear? I'm mixing links with quotes, but I've never had so many more links than quotes that I dispensed with the [] around the links... (good thing I'd put all that history stuff into Events over the past months, or this bio would be graduating from Scary to Behemoth...) Thanks, Barbara

 

I've been using your excellent citation file, and now I'm integrating your file and my file. The file you sent me has only HoME citations. Did you have a seperate one for other sources? (I much suspect you do!) If not, I can send mine with UT, Sil, LOTR and Hobbit references. Lyllyn

 

The file you sent me has only HoME citations. Did you have a seperate one for other sources? (I much suspect you do!) If not, I can send mine with UT, Sil, LOTR and Hobbit references. The version Barbara sent me has separate worksheets for each of those. Because I only have Microsoft Works rather than a full copy of Excel, I can only open one sheet at a time and can't save as multiple worksheets, so I've been sending my additions back to Barbara and then asking her to issue me with a new updated version. I think this also means we know Barbara always has the "master" version? (I've been doing the same on the Links spreadsheet, where she does wonderful cross referencing on the new stuff as well!) Cheers, Liz (PS Thinking about suitable reseach library entries to suggest for members to "test", but need to go and look at whether the ones I'm pondering are suitable.)

 

Argh! I never thought to check for the separate tabs; shows how little I use excel. I see it all now, thanks! Lyllyn

 

Hi Lyllyn I was looking around, and I think a few different styles of entry which users could be asked to comment on can be found in the following entries. (I included the Adûnaic one because it may not be clear to people that the part in square brackets is "researcher commentary" rather than quotes - I think we need to know if we need to make that more obvious.) Easterlings (Barbara's "standard" - no quotation marks around quotes, researcher additions in square brackets.) Erendis (Quotation marks around quotes, research additions unmarked.) Gilraen (A mix of quotes and an essay-tyle entry by the researcher.) Adûnaic (An attempt to update an existing entry containing just researcher commentary in line with Barbara's "standard" when quotes were added.) Hope this helps Cheers, Liz

 

Hi Lyllyn, I'm doing my usual obsessive number on the Kin-strife in Gondor (as part of the Northmen of Rhovanion research), and would like to modify some of the entries that you've already done, if you don't mind. To see what I've done so far, it's probably easiest to list the Timeline Events under the Kings, then scroll down to circa 1250 (for Eldacar's origins), and circa 1430 for all the Kin-strife entries... I'd like to modify your Kin-strife in Gondor entry, and make it the Overview like my Wars and Battles Template, as well as moving some quotes around between entries for the others you've done (when they were the only entries, they had to include everything, but that's not the case now...). Oh, and I'd also like to rename the Castamir usurps the throne of Gondor entry to "Castamir the Usurper Becomes King of Gondor" for consistency with the other genealogical events (I've added most of the KoG's entries for ascensions and deaths), which doesn't lose the fact that he usurped the throne. Anyway, if you have any objections, let me know... if so, I will find another way to do what I want... (notice that there's now an Aragorn II Becomes King Elessar Telcontar of Arnor and Gondor event as well as a Crowning of King Elessar event? One focuses on the genealogical (succession) stuff, the other on the ceremonial (political) stuff...) - Barbara, whose Research Muse is on a major roll...

 

Answering a few posts here: Liz - thanks for pulling that together! I'll troll for vict... volunteers. Barbara - be my guest! The battle template is far more evolved than current Castamir entry and I like the standardized format. Rename and move quotes to your hearts content. The only thing I would watch out for is the length of some of the event names. Lyllyn

 

be my guest! Thanks, Lyllyn! The only thing I would watch out for is the length of some of the event names. So, I take it that "Castamir the Usurper's Nefarious Sons and Hordes of Followers Including all the Experienced Maritime Folks Seize Umbar and Force It to Break Away from Gondor thus Beginning Generations of Wars that Last until King Elessar Telcontar's Long and Glorious Rule in the Fourth Age" is out? - Barbara

 

So, I take it that "Castamir the Usurper's Nefarious Sons and Hordes of Followers Including all the Experienced Maritime Folks Seize Umbar and Force It to Break Away from Gondor thus Beginning Generations of Wars that Last until King Elessar Telcontar's Long and Glorious Rule in the Fourth Age" is out? Fraid so, much as I enjoyed it! Lyllyn

 

I've added most of the KoG's entries for ascensions and deaths I went to take a quick look at your entries and was slightly confused at how you formated it. Will you be going back to edit them? If you are, I'm wondering if you'll like my template of how I did the birth/ascendance/death of the Kings of Arnor/Arthedain. It's more of a researcher's statement then anything else, with citations from where the information is extracted. If anything particular happened in that king's reign, there will be quotes. (It works well with the Kings of Arnor because we know less things about them. I don't know if it'll work as well with the Kings of Gondor.) ~Loqi

 

Hi Loqi, I went to take a quick look at your entries and was slightly confused at how you formated it. Will you be going back to edit them? I mean to add a post to say that the Kings of Gondor genealogical entries that I added recently were just the absolute bare minimum of quotes to establish dates, and to, um, invite anyone who wished to to expand upon the entries to be my guest. To make a long story short, these were quick-and-dirty so I could use the links elsewhere, unlike the Kings of Rohan entries I did (and never quite finished the, well, boring ones...) All I did was take the list of Gondor's kings from App A, and format them as follows: I listed the previous king, then the king that the entry is about in bold, then the next king. Sometimes there were comments, which I included, but usually not. This is the same thing I did with Kings of Rohan, except that their list incorporated much more descriptive text. (And the Kings of Rohan is a vertical list, whereas the Kings of Gondor is a horizontal list, if that makes any sense... so it doesn't look as good as a quote in a genealogical entry. It's especially confusing with the Eldacar entry, what with being usurped and then regaining the throne...) Frankly, I'm not at all interested in Gondor or its kings; I only did this so I could establish some dates in the timeline events. My passion is wars and battles, and I wanted something to link to when the text says something like "In Valacar's time...". Currently, I'm working on a Northmen of Rhovanion bio for Liz's Races entries, so I'm putting in battles relating to Northmen/Rohirrim (working on the Kin-strife currently, and am reviewing the Wars with the Wainriders... and would like to do the Battle of the Hornburg and the Battle of the Morannon and the Orc-raid at Parth Galen, and the subsequent battle with the orc raiders near Fangorn and...) Will you be going back to edit them? No, not in general, but I will add some history to some of them. When I finish the Kin-strife, for example, I'll go back and copy some relevant quotes and/or links to events to the appropriate king's entries. So, I will add stuff as I'm working on other things, but don't plan to go systematically through the king (of Gondor) entries. (Will also copy quotes or links from the Wars with the Wainriders entries...) If you are, I'm wondering if you'll like my template of how I did the birth/ascendance/death of the Kings of Arnor/Arthedain. It's more of a researcher's statement then anything else, with citations from where the information is extracted. If anything particular happened in that king's reign, there will be quotes. (I haven't looked at your entries recently, so this response is just "in general", not specifically about your entries...) I think it's important to include specific quotes to back up the information, especially dates. If you look at my Eldacar of Gondor Born as Vinitharya in Rhovanion entry, it only has enough of the HoME quote to establish the birth date. Tale of Years quotes are also helpful for a few kings. If an entry also includes a non-quote statement, that's fine with me... as long as the quotes are there. (And I admit, because of the terse format of the KoG list, it would probably be much nicer if I had done non-quote stmts -- but I also wouldn't have gotten two dozen entries done in one (obsessive) night...) And I agree that any other relevant quotes about that king should be included, it just isn't my priority right now, unlike when I was focused on the Kings of Rohan entries. (On the other hand, I added a Minalcar builds the Argonath event and a Great White Pillar of Umbar thing and an Erui place, just because they were in the text that I was processing for the Kin-strife...) Sorry, Loqi, if this doesn't make much sense, but I'm basically prioritizing my obsessiveness to Races and (associated) Wars and Battles entries. And, furthermore, I was in a big rush when I did the KoG entries, because I knew that once I got the RoTK EE DVD that I wouldn't do any Resources stuff for a while... I'm actually on a bathroom break right now after seeing the movie and before starting one of the commentaries... Got my terrycloth robe, flannel pajamas, and fuzzy slippers on, something to eat and drink nearby, and the 3 remote controls at hand... See you next week, maybe... - Barbara

 

I see. Don't worry. Go enjoy the DVD! (I won't be able to watch mine until this weekend) I was just wondering because I plan to work on the KoG dates once I'm done dealing with the Chieftains of Arnor, and thought that if you're going to work on them, we might as well have a set format. I'm guessing that I can edit your entries once I get to them? And you're right about the quotes. I am kind of shrifty for not putting quotes in those entries too. I will be going back and edit them again, as they are not hyperlinked. ~Loqi

 

I was just wondering because I plan to work on the KoG dates once I'm done dealing with the Chieftains of Arnor, and thought that if you're going to work on them, we might as well have a set format. Well, I'm definitely not proposing the ugly way I did KoG as a template As long as there's at least one quote to establish dates, I'll follow (in the future) whatever format you recommend... (I don't exactly plan to do any more, except someday to finish the Kings of Rohan, but... um, I didn't actually plan to do the KoG before I got hit by the bug one evening...) I'm guessing that I can edit your entries once I get to them? Oh, pretty please? With chocolate on top? Let me know when you're ready to deal with the KoG, and (if you'd like), I'll send you my text files... one or two might have something worth copying from... Halfway through the actors' commentary... - Barbara

 

Woohoo! I just added event number 600, Osgiliath ruined and its stone bridge broken... *Mindful of the mess the confetti made last time, Barbara throws streamers instead.* And, better yet, the sun isn't shining on my TV screen any longer, so I can go back to viewing the RoTK EE... - Barbara, grinning madly

 

I want to post this in a few places to invite commentary. Liz has kindly suggested some entries to check, and I've added a few more to give a choice of subjects. Any others that people want to use or substitute as good examples? Please feel free to suggest entries or additional questions, then I'll post it. (and of course, in the process of looking at entries, I've seen soooo many I want to update… ) Wanted - members to check some resource entries and give feedback! We would like to make entries easy to use for members. To that end, we would like the help of members who use or might in the future use resources, but aren't one of us "research geeks". Here are some entries, with some differences in the format. We'd like people to read or at least scan them, and indicate if any are easier or harder to use, and make any other comments you think of. We also have a few questions: Is it clear which parts are quotes, and which are put in by the resource person entering data? What aspects are most useful? Is there anything that is irritating or confusing? New members should not feel exempt - we want your opinions also! Easterlings or Osgiliath (Barbara's "standard" - no quotation marks around quotes, researcher additions in square brackets.) Nazgul or Erendis (Quotation marks around quotes, research additions unmarked.) Gilraen (A mix of quotes and an essay-tyle entry by the researcher.) Adûnaic (An attempt to update an existing entry containing just researcher commentary in line with Barbara's "standard" when quotes were added.)

 

Looks like East-mark is our Place number 400. woohoo. *Barbara yawns and wonders what's for lunch...* - Barbara

 

I just added some Places for Rohan, namely West-mark and East-mark, that sound remarkably like places in the Shire, Westmarch and Eastmarch. Do you think that this will be confusing for people who are looking up either a -march or a -mark? If so, should I change the names to "West/Eastmarch in the Shire" and "West/East-mark in Rohan"? And if I do that, should I do the same for West/East -fold and -emnet, as well? What do you think? (And Happy Holidays to those of you who celebrate holidays around this time... - Barbara

 

Looks like East-mark is our Place number 400. woohoo Woohoo!!! and the same for the 600th eventI didn't mark earlier. Around here it's turkey, with all the sweets leering at me invitingly. Lyllyn

 

Do you think that this will be confusing for people who are looking up either a -march or a -mark? If so, should I change the names to "West/Eastmarch in the Shire" and "West/East-mark in Rohan"? My inclination is no, as they are different, and Rohan is identified as "The Mark." Lyllyn

 

My inclination is no, as they are different, and Rohan is identified as "The Mark." Good... Thanks, Lyllyn! - Barbara

 

I just put up Undying Lands, and merely put the link to Aman. Then I wondered if I should reproduce the whole entry. What do people think? Has anyone tackled this issue? Lyllyn

 

From a database maintenance standpoint, a link seems best to me (especially since you did it as an in-text link, so all the user has to do is click). Although I do copy bits of text from some entries (usually Events) into others (Races, for example), I try to copy the absolute minimum amount possible (and also link to the "real" Event entry), so that I don't have to remember to change two (or more) entries if I change (or add to) the original Event entry. In the Places lists, should I leave Undying Lands as a "see Aman" reference in the Synonyms list? Or move it to the R-Z list? - Barbara P.S. Thanks for doing those. I think I finally got straight the relationship between Valinor and the Undying Lands and Aman... But the Valinor entry has a stray comma at the end of the Other Names list -- are there more names that got truncated? And, after reading your entries, I added "Mountains of Aman" to the Pelóri entry.

 

Hi Lyllyn, Do you mind if I possibly rearrange your Éomer Overtakes the Orcs outside Fangorn Forest and Meriadoc and Pippin Escape and meet Treebeard entries? (And maybe also the Frodo and Samwise set off for Mordor, but that probably won't change...) I'm working on the overview for the Orc-raid at Parth Galen, including Éomer's Attack on the Orc-band at Fangorn... My level of obsession with details -- especially military ones -- scares me sometimes... - Barbara

 

From a database maintenance standpoint, a link seems best to me (especially since you did it as an in-text link, so all the user has to do is click). Although I do copy bits of text from some entries (usually Events) into others (Races, for example), I try to copy the absolute minimum amount possible (and also link to the "real" Event entry), so that I don't have to remember to change two (or more) entries if I change (or add to) the original Event entry. Good point! In the Places lists, should I leave Undying Lands as a "see Aman" reference in the Synonyms list? Or move it to the R-Z list? I don't have a strong opinion on this, since we're the ones using them, I don't know how much it matters. Since you are doing all the work on these lists, I'd like to keep it as simple as possible. ( so you'll have more time to do entries, of course.) I think I finally got straight the relationship between Valinor and the Undying Lands and Aman... But the Valinor entry has a stray comma at the end of the Other Names list -- are there more names that got truncated? Thanks, stray comma removed. I didn't understand the relationship either, which made it rewarding to research. And, after reading your entries, I added "Mountains of Aman" to the Pelóri entry. Thanks! I noticed that Pelóri had moved to the top of the list. After that I checked the alpha threads, and saw I didn't need to tell you to add to the top post. I am doing Field of Cormallen, so you can add that one whenever convenient. Lyllyn

 

Do you mind if I possibly rearrange your Éomer Overtakes the Orcs outside Fangorn Forest and Meriadoc and Pippin Escape and meet Treebeard entries? (And maybe also the Frodo and Samwise set off for Mordor, but that probably won't change...) I'm working on the overview for the Orc-raid at Parth Galen, including Éomer's Attack on the Orc-band at Fangorn... My level of obsession with details -- especially military ones -- scares me sometimes... Yes, but we like your obsesssssion, we does... Rearrange as needed. I like your battle template. Eventually I'll have to go back and redo the battles I entered. Lyllyn

 

Rearrange as needed. Thanks! Especially since the quote you used is absolutely perfect for the Overview entry... (And I added Field of Cormallen.) - Barbara

 

I had a look at those links and in all honesty I don't mind which. It seems to me that the different types depend on what sort of data is going in to it. The one thing I noticed that I did like was the dates written as eg 06Dec04. The ones that are written eg 06.03.04 it's hard to tell whether that means 6th March or 3rd June. Nic

 

I had a look at those links and in all honesty I don't mind which. It seems to me that the different types depend on what sort of data is going in to it. Thanks for your feedback, Nic! The one thing I noticed that I did like was the dates written as eg 06Dec04. The ones that are written eg 06.03.04 it's hard to tell whether that means 6th March or 3rd June. LOL! That's exactly why I started using the new date format... Thank you for noticing! - Barbara

 

Nic wrote: The one thing I noticed that I did like was the dates written as eg 06Dec04. The ones that are written eg 06.03.04 it's hard to tell whether that means 6th March or 3rd June. Barbara wrote: LOL! That's exactly why I started using the new date format... Thank you for noticing! And there was me painstakingly making sure I entered all the dates in the contributor section in that weird backwards format so our American members wouldn't get confused.... Actually, I'd noticed Barbara's solution as well, and liked it a great deal, so I think I will also use that in future (and change existing entries when I update them). It certainly does remove the confusion of whether it's month/day or day/month. And do I see from the feedback so far that none of the formatting is particularly confusing and no-one has any strong preferences as to which way we do things....? Cheers, Liz

 

Sorry, Liz -- I don't know how I missed your post... And there was me painstakingly making sure I entered all the dates in the contributor section in that weird backwards format so our American members wouldn't get confused.... That's *really* funny, because I was trying to enter them backwards because I saw that one of the other researchers (Lyllyn???) did, and thought it would be easier for the British folks... Unfortunately, I only remembered about half the time, so I could no longer tell *in my own entries* which I had done! LOL! So I'm changing my old dates as I revise the entries, as well... And do I see from the feedback so far that none of the formatting is particularly confusing and no-one has any strong preferences as to which way we do things....? Yes, that does seem to be the case... - Barbara

 

That's *really* funny, because I was trying to enter them backwards because I saw that one of the other researchers (Lyllyn???) did, and thought it would be easier for the British folks... Unfortunately, I only remembered about half the time, so I could no longer tell *in my own entries* which I had done! LOL! So I'm changing my old dates as I revise the entries, as well... And I was copying Ang's original sample, thinking it might a more "universal" method. I'm changing mine too, as I revise. Lyllyn

 

Hi everyone, I didn't feel like doing any *real* work (like on the Battle of the Hornburg), so I finished the Rohan genealogical entries -- births, ascensions, and deaths of the kings (and immediate family). The remaining kings were the boring ones -- during whose reigns Rohan was peaceful, and nothing interesting happened -- so the birth, ascension, and death entries for each king are all the same. Sorry! (I told you they were boring....) Anyway, I have a file containing the list of Kings of the Mark from Appendix A, with lots and lots and lots of links. If you'd like a copy, let me know. With the links, it's essentially a complete (to date) history of Rohan, grouped by whichever king was involved. I also finished the genealogical events (ascensions and (implied) deaths) of the Kings of Dale. And yes, Liz, I am working on Races entries -- Rohirrim, to be exact. But I'm filling in some missing battles... we wouldn't want their History to be incomplete, now would we? ;-D My path may meander (a lot), but I'll get there eventually... - Barbara

 

Hi everyone, *Note: I've revised this post multiple times, so please be sure to read this latest version before responding.* Lyllyn asked me to post these proposals on the Tools and Templates thread, but I thought I would post them here first, so we can discuss any of these recommendations. I've refined a few recommendations since we discussed them last, so some of this is new. Please let me know what you think. I will post the result on the Tools and Templates thread after we agree on what the standard should be. Also, should we standardize on whether the titles for all events are capitalized? I've always done so, but I don't think anyone else does -- I'm quite willing to change if that's the consensus. And, I noticed that those of us who follow British-style grammar don't put commas around the titles, whereas I do, per American-style grammar (e.g. "Éomer, King of Rohan, Dies"). I personally don't want to stop using the commas, but I'm not trying to push them as a standard, just because I use them in these proposals. Either way is fine with me. Hope this helps! - Barbara ************************ Proposed Title Format for Genealogical Events The elements in [brackets] and {braces} are described below, along with examples of each type of genealogical title. {Braces} indicate that the element is optional in the title; the information should appear in the description of the entry, but may or may not be mentioned in the title, at the discretion of the researcher. [Person] of [Title-place] Born {at another Place} [Person] Becomes [Title] {in Battle-name} [Person] Weds [another Person] [Person], [Title], Dies {of Reason} {at Place} {in Battle-name} [Person], [Title], Slain {by Whom} {at Place} {in Battle-name} [Person] - this is usually the birth name of the primary person (e.g. "Minalcar"), used for all of that person's genealogical events (birth, marriage, ascension(s), death). Generation qualifiers should be included (e.g. "Aragorn II", not "Aragorn") but only if they are from canon ("Boromir" of the Fellowship, not "Boromir II"). If the person is listed in Appendix A in a list of Kings or Stewards, the name should be the same as listed (e.g. "Eorl the Young", not "Eorl", and "Théoden", not "Théoden Ednew"). For Hobbits, full, formal names should be used for the genealogical events ("Frodo Baggins", not "Frodo", and "Meriadoc Brandybuck", not "Merry"). [Title] - consists of "[Title-position] [Title-name] of [Title-place]" or, in the case of heirs to a ruling position, "Parent's Heir", e.g. "Théoden's Heir", "Denethor II's Heir".

[Title-position] - "King", "Lord", "Steward", "Chieftain", etc.; e.g. "Lord of the Éothéod". [Title-name] - A formal name used by the person, usually when taking the title, included in the [Title] only if it differs from the birth name; e.g. "King Rómendacil II of Gondor". [Title-place] - the name of the place or the people mentioned in the title; in the case of births, it should be the hereditary title that the person will assume upon the death of a parent; e.g. "King of Gondor", "Chieftain of the Dúnedain".

{Reason} - the reason for a non-natural death, e.g. "illness", "childbirth", etc. {Whom} - the name, title (if the name is not known), or race of the individual(s) who slew the primary [Person], e.g. "Azog", "the Witch-king", "Orcs". {Place} - the physical location of the event, e.g. "the Paths of the Dead". In the case of births, it is included only if different from what might be expected; for example, if a future ruler of a realm is born outside that realm. {Battle-name} - the name of a military action in which the person died or was slain, or received a battlefield promotion; for example: "Siege of the Hornburg" or "Battle of the Pelennor". Examples: Births: [Person] of [Title-place] Born {at another Place} Aragorn II of the Dúnedain Born Eorl the Young of the Éothéod Born Théodred of Rohan Born Minalcar of Gondor Born Eldacar of Arnor Born Eldacar of Gondor Born as Vinitharya in Rhovanion (the name "Vinitharya" was abandoned before adulthood, so I chose not to use it for Eldacar's ascension) Ascensions: [Person] Becomes [Title] {in Battle-name} Aragorn II Becomes Chieftain of the Dúnedain Aragorn II Becomes King Elessar Telcontar of Arnor and Gondor Eorl the Young Becomes Lord of the Éothéod Eorl the Young Becomes King of Rohan Minalcar Becomes Regent of Gondor Minalcar Becomes King Rómendacil II of Gondor Éomer Becomes King of Rohan in the Battle of the Pelennor Marriages: [Person] Weds [another Person] Aragorn II Weds Arwen Théodwyn Weds Éomund of Eastfold Arvedui Weds Fíriel Valacar Weds Vidumavi, Daughter of the King of Rhovanion Deaths: [Person], [Title], Dies {of Reason} {at Place} {in Battle-name} [Person], [Title], Slain {by Whom} {at Place} {in Battle-name} Aragorn II, King Elessar Telcontar of Arnor and Gondor, Dies Baldor, Brego's Heir, Dies Trapped in the Paths of the Dead Brego, King of Rohan, Dies of Grief Elfhild, Queen of Rohan, Dies in Childbirth Helm Hammerhand, King of Rohan, Dies in the Siege of the Hornburg Eorl the Young, King of Rohan, Slain in the Attack on Rohan by Easterlings Walda, King of Rohan, Slain by Orcs Théodred, Théoden's Heir, Slain in the First Battle of the Fords of Isen Théoden, King of Rohan, Slain by the Witch-king in the Battle of the Pelennor Thorin II Oakenshield, King under the Mountain, Slain by Bolg in the Battle of Five Armies

 

I started to add North and South Undeeps, and realized there is a sticky point. Because of the shifting borders of Gondor throught the third age, and the river as a border, which is the correct region to put places when national borders change? Barbara put Undeeps in Gondor, which was correct at the time of the Battle of the Field of Celebrant, but not at the time of the Ring War. I listed the Wetwang as "Other Middle-earth," but at one time that would have belonged to Gondor. Any thoughts on this, so we stay consistent with each other? (And Barbara, I'll post some comments on your comprehensive format for genealogic events soon!) Lyllyn

 

Because of the shifting borders of Gondor throught the third age, and the river as a border, which is the correct region to put places when national borders change? When and if you figure this out, please let me know... - Barbara, who thinks that throwing a dart at a map is occasionally the best solution...

 

Because of the shifting borders of Gondor throught the third age, and the river as a border, which is the correct region to put places when national borders change? It strikes me there are two aspects to this: "conventional usage" and political divisions. Take the example of Isengard: IIRC, it's not granted with the lands given to Eorl and not politically part of Rohan. So I think that makes it, strictly speaking, still in Gondor. But I bet most people you asked would say it was in Rohan, and saying it's in Gondor just sounds silly. So I think the answer partly hinges on whether or not you consider Gondor to have fully ceded these territories or to still have claims on them? For instance, Ithilien may be deserted, but Gondor has not relinquished its claim to it, so Ithilien is still part of Gondor. I can't remember the answer off the top of my head (and I'm too lazy to search through UT right now) but does Gondor still have any kind of overlordship of Calenardhon after Cirion allows Eorl to settle there? If it does, I think Rohan (and all the places in Rohan) might be considered as a subdivision within Gondor in the way Calenardhon was. If it doesn't.... hmm, that's trickier. My suggestion would be to put places in the region they're in at the time of the Ring War (since that's what most people would be most familiar with) but to include a note about the shifting boundaries? Does that help at all? Cheers, Liz

 

It strikes me there are two aspects to this: "conventional usage" and political divisions. Take the example of Isengard: IIRC, it's not granted with the lands given to Eorl and not politically part of Rohan. So I think that makes it, strictly speaking, still in Gondor. But I bet most people you asked would say it was in Rohan, and saying it's in Gondor just sounds silly. Yes, it is politically Gondor's, but geographically Rohan's. So I think the answer partly hinges on whether or not you consider Gondor to have fully ceded these territories or to still have claims on them? For instance, Ithilien may be deserted, but Gondor has not relinquished its claim to it, so Ithilien is still part of Gondor. Yes, that's the rub. I will never consider Ithilien as being anything other than Gondor, even if it is overrun with Uruk-hai. And the areas around Emyn Muil (Nen Hithoel, Rauros, Parth Celebrant, even Sarn Gebir) that I've been adding lately, I will always consider part of Gondor, even though it no longer defends them, and the east side is populated with Orcs. I can't remember the answer off the top of my head (and I'm too lazy to search through UT right now) but does Gondor still have any kind of overlordship of Calenardhon after Cirion allows Eorl to settle there? No, Gondor ceded Calenardhon/Rohan completely. Faramir (as usual ) explains it all: 'These are the Rohirrim, as we name them, masters of horses, and we ceded to them the fields of Calenardhon that are since called Rohan; for that province had long been sparsely peopled. ' The Two Towers, LoTR Book 4, Ch 5, The Window on the West There the Rohirrim lived afterwards as free men under their own kings and laws, but in perpetual alliance with Gondor. The Return of the King, LoTR Appendix A, Annals of the Kings and Rulers: The House of Eorl My suggestion would be to put places in the region they're in at the time of the Ring War (since that's what most people would be most familiar with) but to include a note about the shifting boundaries? Very good idea, and (as you alluded to) in one sense that's what we are already doing -- because we recognize Rohan as separate from Gondor. If we agree on this, I'll fix the Undeeps (Lyllyn was really being very kind: I did indeed add the Undeeps while I was thinking about the Invasion of Calenardhon, but it's not that I thought about it and chose Gondor over Rohan -- I just goofed... ) And I would add: put the place in its geographical region (e.g. Isengard under Rohan), but put a note if there is a political vs geographical difference. (I've got a quote or two that I could add to the Isengard entry - if not already there - to clarify that situation.) Does that help at all? Yes, a lot. I couldn't wrap my feeble brain around it last night, but your post made the issue come into focus for me. Thanks! - Barbara [Edit:] P.S. I changed the Undeeps to Rohan.

 

It strikes me there are two aspects to this: "conventional usage" and political divisions. And I would add: put the place in its geographical region (e.g. Isengard under Rohan), but put a note if there is a political vs geographical difference. (I've got a quote or two that I could add to the Isengard entry - if not already there - to clarify that situation.) It sounds like we are all thinking fairly similarly - put it where most people (the non-geek sort) would think of it, which will be what it was during the Ring War for most situations. Then note in the entry any oddities or changes through the time. A (perhaps extreme) example is Gondor. Lyllyn

 

It sounds like we are all thinking fairly similarly - put it where most people (the non-geek sort) would think of it, which will be what it was during the Ring War for most situations. Then note in the entry any oddities or changes through the time. Good! I'll be playing around with the Isengard entry, so I'll switch its region to Rohan. I'll add a note and a quote to clarify the geographical/political situation... Gondor is an... interesting case. Wouldn't it be clearer to describe Gondor's location in terms of the White Mountains rather than the Bay of Belfalas? It really did surround the White Mtns, at least, until they gave Calenardhon to the Rohirrim... - Barbara [Edit:] Isengard is updated and the overlordship of Gondor noted.

 

Gondor is an... interesting case. Wouldn't it be clearer to describe Gondor's location in terms of the White Mountains rather than the Bay of Belfalas? It really did surround the White Mtns, at least, until they gave Calenardhon to the Rohirrim That's a good point... I'll have to go review my quotes and ponder! Lyllyn

 

Hi everyone, I updated the Numbered and Hyperlinked Footnotes Template to use superscripts. Thanks to Lyllyn for showing me how to create superscripts in HTML (from her Gondor entry) - Barbara.

 

Hi, I updated the Wars and Battles Template to include a suggested way of documentng the combatants on both sides of the battle, the good guys as well as the bad. This will be useful for alliances of multiple armies... For example, in the Invasion of the Westfold by Saruman (e.g. the Battles of the Fords of Isen and the Battle of the Hornburg), the Rohirrim weren't the only forces of good -- they had help from the Ents and the Huorns. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. - Barbara

 

Thanks Barbara, this looks good! Lyllyn

 

Hi Barbara I've read through the proposed titles for Genealogical Events and think these look good - with the reservations I've already expresssed to you about balancing "Entish naming conventions" againt precision. On the updated "Battles" templates, I think it's a good idea to list both sets of combatants in all cases - even in the case of a single force, it's good to know who was leading them, who were other captains, how many of them there were, how they were kitted out and so on. What bothers me - and it's a really picky point and I can't think of a good way to solve it right now - is your use of the terms "Allies" and "The Enemy". Coming back to the issue of the audience being fanfic writers, that's making a big assumption about which perspective we're writing from. If I were to write the Battle of Pelennor Fields from the perspective of a Haradrim soldier, the allies would be the Orcs, Variags and so on, and the Enemy would be the Gondorians, Rohirrim etc. Can we find a more neutral way of referring to the two forces that doesn't pre-judge who are the "good guys"? (Which is not always clear in some battles anyway.) Cheers, Liz

 

I've read through the proposed titles for Genealogical Events and think these look good - with the reservations I've already expresssed to you about balancing "Entish naming conventions" againt precision. I agree with being careful not to let the titles get too "Entish". I think we've got to balance the precision and completeness against convenience for the user - the titles are meant to let the user know what is contained in the complete entry. Coming back to the issue of the audience being fanfic writers, that's making a big assumption about which perspective we're writing from. I see your point, but I can't think of any short, easy way to distinguish other than this. I'd be happy if you came up with one, of course. I would also say that the assumption originates with Tolkien, not us, and that authors who write from that perspective are often doing it because they want to try exploring "the enemy" POV/society/etc. Lyllyn

 

I realized it might be nice to use examples, so I'll give my preferences. I think we should all discuss it, and maybe try to get some volunteers who are not research geeks. This may be extreme, but my preference most of the time is for just enough for the user to identify the event. For the "[Person] of [Title-place] Born {at another Place}" I would prefer the shorter style, as long as it identifies the person adequately. When there were kings of Arnor and Gondor with similar names, then the place is essential. When the person is well known or obvious, we may not need it. Similarly I would leave titles off if they aren't important to the event. so Aragorn II Becomes King Elessar Telcontar of Arnor and Gondor is acceptable, (although I might trim it even a little more) But Aragorn II, King Elessar Telcontar of Arnor and Gondor, Dies seems unnecessary as most people will know who Aragorn is. I'd put that one as Aragorn II Dies or Aragorn II, King of Arnor and Gondor, Dies Similarly in Helm Hammerhand, King of Rohan, Dies of Starvation in the Siege of the Hornburg I'd prefer to omit Dies of Starvation at the least. Shall I try to round up some non-geeks to comment? Lyllyn

 

I see your point, but I can't think of any short, easy way to distinguish other than this. I'd be happy if you came up with one, of course. I would also say that the assumption originates with Tolkien, not us. I'll do my best to think of something! It really is a minor nitpick, and I agree that Tolkien often does point us clearly to The Good Guys and The Enemy, but it bothers me enough that I'd like to find a better solution if I can! Perhaps I'm also not clear enough about what range of events you think we should apply this template to. Would you apply it to the Kinslaying at Alqualonde, for instance? And if so, would you make the Feanorians or the Teleri into the "Allies"? [Proposed title formats] Lyllyn has made some good suggestions - certainly all that information should be somewhere in the entry, but not necessarily in the title. On the other hand, I think it's good for researchers to start with the "long" version of the title and then cut it down, to ensure they have included enough in the title to give it precsion and to remind them to include anything cut from the "long" version somewhere in the entry. Similarly in Helm Hammerhand, King of Rohan, Dies of Starvation in the Siege of the Hornburg I'd prefer to omit Dies of Starvation at the least. Actually, I was thinking about that title ever since I read Barbara's proposed titles post and (sorry Barbara!), I'd prefer Dies of Starvation to be omitted on the grounds that, as I read it, Helm died of exposure rather than starvation. Am I misreading the passage in Tolkien, or is Barbara perhaps using starve in the historical sense — now preseved only in somewhat obscure North-country dialect usage — of meaning "to die of cold"? (And how do I acquire these useless bits of knowledge?) Cheers, nitpickily, Liz

 

Well, as a passing non-geek I'd say go for shorter titles and leave all the extra information in the entry. Avon

 

Well, as a passing non-geek I'd say go for shorter titles and leave all the extra information in the entry. Thanks, Avon. I greatly appreciate input from the members who will use the information (and aren't obsessed resource geeks like us). Within the next several months we're going to be looking at upgrading the Resources section. While I can't promise any particular change is feasible, input from members is most welcome! Any ideas? Lyllyn

 

On the updated "Battles" templates, I think it's a good idea to list both sets of combatants in all cases - even in the case of a single force, it's good to know who was leading them, who were other captains, how many of them there were, how they were kitted out and so on. I'm beginning to think that way, too. *Barbara puts her face into her hand and weeps, remembering that she's responsible for the Battle of the Pelennor and the (upcoming) Battle of the Morannon entries, where everybody and their brother-in-arms fought on the good guy side... and someday she wants to do an overview of the War of the Rings and also the Last Alliance... begins to sob uncontrollably* Can we find a more neutral way of referring to the two forces that doesn't pre-judge who are the "good guys"? (Which is not always clear in some battles anyway.) Well, I struggled with that, too, and am open to suggestions! - Barbara

 

Re: subtitles for the combatants in the Battle Template: I would also say that the assumption originates with Tolkien, not us, and that authors who write from that perspective are often doing it because they want to try exploring "the enemy" POV/society/etc. Yes, that's what I was thinking, as well, but I'd still be glad to think of better subtitles... - Barbara

 

Re: identifying the combatants in the Battle Template: I'll do my best to think of something! It really is a minor nitpick, and I agree that Tolkien often does point us clearly to The Good Guys and The Enemy, but it bothers me enough that I'd like to find a better solution if I can! I'd be happy for suggestions... Perhaps I'm also not clear enough about what range of events you think we should apply this template to. Would you apply it to the Kinslaying at Alqualonde, for instance? And if so, would you make the Feanorians or the Teleri into the "Allies"? I tend to think of a battle as any event where combat of any (physical) form occurs between at least two parties for any reason (good or bad)... so, yes, the Kinslaying at Alqualondë would qualify Hmmmm, maybe we could employ a sports metaphor? Would "Offense" and "Defense" work for you as subtitles? (I wouldn't even have thought of this, but just saw a headline about an offensive coach and wondered why he is considered offensive ["Does he swears, Precious? Does he spits?"] but realized it was about sports, football (the un-soccer), I think... okay, soooooo not a sports person here...) - Barbara

 

okay, soooooo not a sports person here... I'm with on you that. How about "Attackers" and "Defenders"? If necessary, these could modified at times, such as "Rebelling forces" or "Usurper's forces" and "Existing government forces" Your template as is can be modified by simply typing in new verbiage both places. If we get set templates, that might make it more difficult. Lyllyn

 

Would "Offense" and "Defense" work for you as subtitles? Ooh, I certainly think we're getting warmer here - although, as a British speller, offense spelt with an s is, well, I could say offensive but perhaps odd would be better. Hmm, how about Attackers and Defenders or Attacking Force and Defending/Defensive Force? Edit I see GMTA (or fools seldom disagree) and Lyllyn beat me to this suggestion. *Barbara puts her face into her hand and weeps, remembering that she's responsible for the Battle of the Pelennor and the (upcoming) Battle of the Morannon entries, where everybody and their brother-in-arms fought on the good guy side... and someday she wants to do an overview of the War of the Rings and also the Last Alliance... begins to sob uncontrollably* There, there, Barbara *pats Barbara gently on shoulder* It'll be all right. Cheers, Liz

 

re: genealogical event titles I've read through the proposed titles for Genealogical Events and think these look good - with the reservations I've already expresssed to you about balancing "Entish naming conventions" againt precision. Reservation noted. I've made all the "non-core" elements in the titles optional, but of course, we can always have different views of what is "core" and what is not. Edit: Which I'll address in subsequent posts... Before I answer the rest of the posts on this topic, let me give some background as to why I'd like to introduce some consistency... (and I know that we all agree on the consistency part, it's just the details that we might differ on, but please bear with me anyway...) I've only been a geek very recently. I didn't know anything about Tolkien until I fell in love with the movie. I read LoTR, and was hooked. But even as hooked as I was on the movie and the story, I skimmed the Appendices once, saw that there wasn't much that interested me (except the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), and so ignored them. When I first joined HASA, I looked at the list of Events and was overwhelmed and -- frankly -- not all that interested. It was cluttered with a whole bunch of stuff mentioning Tar-people and Ar-people, and I didn't know who they were (after all, they weren't in LoTR!). And I didn't know that the Ar-people (with a dash) were different from the Arpeople (e.g. Aragorn). And the events seemed so -- random, there wasn't any relation between them that I could see, even though I was beginning to understand (from rereading LoTR many more times) that Tolkien's books were a carefully-woven tapestry of cause-and-effects. And when I searched for "Aragorn", for example, some events didn't show up because he was called "Elessar"... but if I looked at events under "E", those didn't always show up because they were under "King Elessar". (These are all *hypothetical* examples of real problems/confusions that I had at the time, but don't remember the details now...) Not to mention the obvious problem with Weds, Wedding of, and Marriage of... Okay, somewhere along the line, I started working on my Genealogies, read the Hobbit and Silm, entered one teensy entry here, and got, well, hooked doesn't even begin to describe it. The point being, I still remember some of the confusion I had when I first looked at the Events here, when I was a newbie who hadn't even read the Appendices... and now that I feel some responsibility for this database (how did THAT happen?) I'd like to save other newbies the problems I had. (Of course, even before I was a Tolkien geek, I was still a geek, who likes things to be ordered and consistent and clear... so I realize that I didn't have the same POV as every other newbie.) - Barbara, who has gone far beyond rambling now... my apologies!

 

Liz and Lyllyn, Hmm, how about Attackers and Defenders or Attacking Force and Defending/Defensive Force? Hey I like those! How about "Attacking Forces" and "Defensive Forces"? - Barbara

 

Within the next several months we're going to be looking at upgrading the Resources section. While I can't promise any particular change is feasible, input from members is most welcome! Any ideas? Um, no. I'll keep thinking about it. I did go and have a look at it to try and work out why I don't find it very inviting to use. I couldn't work it out exactly, but I think it is more related to the ni!HASA format than the entries themselves. It just takes me too many clicks and non-instinctive (to me at any rate) links to get where I want. I promise to try and spend a little more time in there sometime seeing how it works for a non-geek. ;-) Avon

 

Your template as is can be modified by simply typing in new verbiage both places. If we get set templates, that might make it more difficult. Agreed! I think that, while data elements that cross all/most entry types (like "Etymology") might make sense as separate db fields, I'm uncomfortable with setting the templates for different types of entries into stone. Mainly because we can add a major new section to a text template without needing a database change (I still think of them as "subject to enhancement", not "final"). And, as you say, text templates can be adapted easily to suit a particular exceptional situation. - Barbara

 

Hi Barbara How about "Attacking Forces" and "Defensive Forces"? Yep, I like those, since it makes no value judgements about the rights or wrongs of the attack! Re consistency in events (and elsewhere) - thanks for the background. I think this is moving us into considering how Resources might be developed to meet the needs of users (as opposed to the researchers) - what practical tools, formats and relationships between different data items would help users get at the data they want when they want it? Cheers, Liz

 

re: genealogical event titles I agree with being careful not to let the titles get too "Entish". I think we've got to balance the precision and completeness against convenience for the user - the titles are meant to let the user know what is contained in the complete entry. The short answer: yes, I understand, that's why I made some parts optional, and welcome specific suggestions... (I see that Edit: Lyllyn has some below, and will answer in my reply to her...) A longer answer: which is slightly OT because it pertains to all events, not just the genealogical ones: As I mentioned above, one of the things that confused and frustrated me while looking at the list of events, was that relations (e.g. cause-and-effect) cannot be shown between them in a necessarily "flat" chronological list. (Just as you cannot show family relationships if you take a family tree and "flatten" it into an alphabetical list of persons. But the difference is, we have no way to display events in a family tree-like format.) And, as I mentioned before, the interlocking relationships between his events is part of Tolkien's genius and what makes his work so fascinating. (E.g. I'm no more of a war buff in real life than I am a sports fan, yet I love teasing out the threads of his wars... which is the only thing that makes them comprehensible to me.) So, I had an idea last night to address this issue in the new Resources section: It would be nice if Events had a new field, which would be displayed immediately below the Title (like a subtitle), something like Event Group. For example, all the events relating to the Battle of the Pelennor could be grouped with a subtitle of "Battle of the Pelennor", instead of having "in the Battle of the Pelennor" in the Title field. And, in the chronological list, we would sort the events by Date (as now), then by Event Group (new), then by Sequence Number (new, but discussed before) (so the Second Assault on Lórien would hopefully sort to the top of March 15, and not be interwoven with all those BotP events.) Furthermore, the Event Group field should be searchable, like the (proposed) Date fields, so we could see all the events in the BotP. This would shorten some genealogical titles, too, like Éomer's battlefield promotion and several deaths that occurred in battles and sieges. That's my proposal, which I'd like to add to the list of proposals for the new Resources section, and which would incidentally shorten all event titles, including genealogical ones. What do you guys think? - Barbara Edit: Sorry for another long post... I tend to do that when I'm "thinking through" something...

 

For the "[Person] of [Title-place] Born {at another Place}" I would prefer the shorter style, as long as it identifies the person adequately. When there were kings of Arnor and Gondor with similar names, then the place is essential. The problem with that is, if you haven't read the Appendices closely (and I would bet that many, if not most, book-readers don't), none of the kings whose genealogical events we document so carefully are familiar to you. None, that is, except Aragorn and maybe that horse-guy. (BTW, I used to get the names of Denethor and Théoden confused...) And I don't know how many times I read the book (sans Appendices) and never really "got" that Aragorn was the king of two kingdoms that had been separated and were now reunited. (Arnor? What's that? Númenor who? I well remember what a terrible shock it was when someone on the HA list pointed out that *Arnor* was the major kingdom, and Gondor the lesser one!) Like I said before, I saw all those Tar-guys and didn't have a clue who they were, and that they were all associated with the same kingdom, and why their births were cluttering up the chronology... So, I would argue that the place is essential, and not just where the same name occurs in two kingdoms (only two of those, thank goodness!) When the person is well known or obvious, we may not need it. I think that Aragorn is the only king with universal name recognition. However, I think that there are people who do not know that he wasn't born in Gondor. And I would prefer to leave it in for consistency. Similarly I would leave titles off if they aren't important to the event. so Aragorn II Becomes King Elessar Telcontar of Arnor and Gondor is acceptable, (although I might trim it even a little more) I went back and forth whether to include "Telcontar" or not... should I dump it? It's used in the Kings of Gondor list in Appendix A, but as more of a comment than an item on the list... Aragorn II, King Elessar Telcontar of Arnor and Gondor, Dies seems unnecessary as most people will know who Aragorn is. I'd put that one as Aragorn II Dies or Aragorn II, King of Arnor and Gondor, Dies I would be comfortable with the generalized equivalent of: Aragorn II, King of Arnor and Gondor, Dies for everyone. If you both agree, I will figure out how to word it and change the template. Similarly in Helm Hammerhand, King of Rohan, Dies of Starvation in the Siege of the Hornburg I'd prefer to omit Dies of Starvation at the least. *sigh* I added that in after creating the template, to be consistent with my other entries... but starvation is such an ugly way to die... Shall I try to round up some non-geeks to comment? No, not yet. We need to finish this discussion (including my Event Group idea) before being able to present a clear set of choices to our readers. (We don't want to end up with a score of Apple1: 1 vs Apple2: 1 in a contest between Apples vs Oranges vs Bananas... ) - Barbara

 

How about "Attacking Forces" and "Defensive Forces"? Yep, I like those, since it makes no value judgements about the rights or wrongs of the attack! Good! Since we all agree, I will change the template to "The Combatants" (instead of "The Enemy"), with those subtitles. Edit: Done. I like it! Re consistency in events (and elsewhere) - thanks for the background. I think this is moving us into considering how Resources might be developed to meet the needs of users (as opposed to the researchers) - what practical tools, formats and relationships between different data items would help users get at the data they want when they want it? Yes! - Barbara

 

[Proposed title formats] Lyllyn has made some good suggestions - certainly all that information should be somewhere in the entry, but not necessarily in the title. Yes, and I answered in my last post. (You guys are keeping me hopping today! ) Thinking about it, I think that I tried to keep the "general" case in mind while creating the titles, and tried to encompass all the phrases that might be needed for any specific case. So that when you look at the template, you see all the optional phrases together, which seems long and shocking -- but in the specific case of any one person, only one or (usually) none of the optional ones apply. I also think that Aragorn is just a special case (even I remembered his name by the end of the first movie whereas I wasn't too sure what that other guy's name was until about the third viewing, and I couldn't tell Merry and Pippin apart until about the sixth viewing) so that he's not necessarily a good example of the application of the template... On the other hand, I think it's good for researchers to start with the "long" version of the title and then cut it down, to ensure they have included enough in the title to give it precsion and to remind them to include anything cut from the "long" version somewhere in the entry. Agreed. I just happen to think that some things are more important to mention in the title (like battle name) than others do (but my Event Groups idea might fix that in the future...) I'd prefer to omit Dies of Starvation at the least. Actually, I was thinking about that title ever since I read Barbara's proposed titles post and (sorry Barbara!), I'd prefer Dies of Starvation to be omitted on the grounds that, as I read it, Helm died of exposure rather than starvation. Am I misreading the passage in Tolkien, Liz, you have the remarkable talent of homing straight in on anything that I'm not too sure about, but try to bluff my way through anyway, and making me defend it... Say someone dies of respiratory failure due to emphysema. What killed him, the respiratory failure (the acute problem, which would not have occurred but for the emphysema) or the emphysema (the chronic problem)? Helm died of exposure because he was "gaunt for famine and grief". Well, I've seen people become gaunt after grief: it is not so extreme that they would become susceptible to dying in the cold... but famine could become so. (My belly is rumbling and wants dinner NOW! *grumble*) I think that what *really* killed Helm was the Siege of the Hornburg -- which I think is worthy of note, that a military event could be so disastrous to a country that it loses its king. or is Barbara perhaps using starve in the historical sense — now preseved only in somewhat obscure North-country dialect usage — of meaning "to die of cold"? Oh, absolutely. *Tries to maintain a straight face...* *Sigh* It's awfully hard to make a solid defense of something that I wasn't positive about in the first place, which is why I could never be a defense lawyer. (You, Liz, on the other hand, would be a great judge or prosecutor...) I will change the entry to "Helm Hammerhand, King of Rohan, Dies in the Siege of the Hornburg" (I would offer to make it "HH Dies of Starvation and Exposure in the SotH", but I'd be worried for my safety *ducks*) - Barbara

 

It was cluttered with a whole bunch of stuff mentioning Tar-people and Ar-people, and I didn't know who they were (after all, they weren't in LoTR!). And I didn't know that the Ar-people (with a dash) were different from the Arpeople (e.g. Aragorn). You have a good point. When I go back and look it over, it would be confusing if you didn't know the players. My only (rather poor) excuse is that those were put in when I was trying to get some stuff into the database and had an empty Second Age. So to set things straight, what's the minimum I need? Will adding "of Númenor" to "becomes King" be enough? Do I have to add "of [in] Númenor" to all births and deaths (Braces self...) And the events seemed so -- random, there wasn't any relation between them that I could see, even though I was beginning to understand (from rereading LoTR many more times) that Tolkien's books were a carefully-woven tapestry of cause-and-effects. There wasn't much relation except they all came from that section of UT. Lyllyn

 

My only (rather poor) excuse is that those were put in when I was trying to get some stuff into the database and had an empty Second Age. My words weren't intended as a criticism! LOL! And when I see how much you populated an empty database nearly single-handed, I am *extremely* impressed... So to set things straight, what's the minimum I need? Will adding "of Númenor" to "becomes King" be enough? Yes, that is the only title that I think is important to change in the short run. (oh, and "becomes Queen", too ) In the long run, I may be able to help out with a few of the birth or death titles at a time every once in a while, when I'm watching something on TV that's not capturing my complete attention, and I want to do something mindless... And the events seemed so -- random, there wasn't any relation between them that I could see There wasn't much relation except they all came from that section of UT. Yep, long lists of rulers... b-o-r-i-n-g. (Until I started on my Genealogies, and suddenly every morsel of information from that chapter of UT edit: and the Appendices became scintillatingly fascinating...) - Barbara Edit: OT, but I've been meaning to ask: is "Arda" on your list of Places to be done?

 

My only (rather poor) excuse is that those were put in when I was trying to get some stuff into the database and had an empty Second Age. My words weren't intended as a criticism! LOL! No problem, it's more me shuddering when I look back at my early entries that's the problem. And when I see how much you populated an empty database nearly single-handed, I am *extremely* impressed... And I am reciprocally impressed with what you've done since you got hooked! So to set things straight, what's the minimum I need? Will adding "of Númenor" to "becomes King" be enough? Yes, that is the only title that I think is important to change in the short run. (oh, and "becomes Queen", too ) Of course, "becomes Queen" too! In the long run, I may be able to help out with a few of the birth or death titles at a time every once in a while, when I'm watching something on TV that's not capturing my complete attention, and I want to do something mindless... All help welcome! OT, but I've been meaning to ask: is "Arda" on your list of Places to be done? NO! (Flees into the night.) Lyllyn

 

Rounding up a few posts here. Firstly, I think Barbara and I joined HASA at around the same time, and while I thought Resources was a great idea, I was frustrated by how little information there was in it at the time. Which is not a criticism - these things take time to build up. These days, I am amazed at how much information it does contain, and surprised when something isn't in the database - and that's very much down to the wonderful work by Lyllyn, Barbara, Loqi and all the others. I think the frustration with what was in the database was less acute for me that Barbara, since I did know who all the Tar- Ar- and Ar guys were. However, the more data we accumulate, the more I think the relationships between different pieces of data become important. Which is why I do like in-text links, Barbara wonderful "battle overview" templates and this idea of "event groups". I can see that it would be really helpful to pull many different sequences of events into groups - and that some events may even sit in more than one group. Liz, you have the remarkable talent of homing straight in on anything that I'm not too sure about, but try to bluff my way through anyway, and making me defend it... Sorry! Hmm, I could be wrong, but respiratory failure is an acute symptom of emphysema, whereas exposure is not a symptom of starvation. I do agree that starvation would have made Helm much more susceptible to exposure, but I definitely think what specifically killed him was the cold (on top of the lack of food), rather than just lack of food resulting in a particular kind of physical failure (such as failure of a major organ), which is what "dies of starvation" implies. So, er, if you can remove it from the title, I would feel happier. OT, but I've been meaning to ask: is "Arda" on your list of Places to be done? NO! (Flees into the night.) *snork* Barbara - don't you just love it when we manage to scare Lyllyn? Cheers, Liz

 

Firstly, I think Barbara and I joined HASA at around the same time, and while I thought Resources was a great idea, I was frustrated by how little information there was in it at the time. Which is not a criticism - these things take time to build up. These days, I am amazed at how much information it does contain, and surprised when something isn't in the database - and that's very much down to the wonderful work by Lyllyn, Barbara, Loqi and all the others. Agreed! Like the Links spreadsheet, the db has grown like Topsy! (Hmmm, was Topsy a plot-bunny?) And don't forget your own contributions... I think the frustration with what was in the database was less acute for me that Barbara, since I did know who all the Tar- Ar- and Ar guys were. Guess you'd discovered the Appendices by then, whereas I was definitely slow on the uptake... However, the more data we accumulate, the more I think the relationships between different pieces of data become important. Which is why I do like in-text links, Barbara wonderful "battle overview" templates and this idea of "event groups". I can see that it would be really helpful to pull many different sequences of events into groups - and that some events may even sit in more than one group. So glad you agree! And, as usual, very nicely stated, too... And yes, some events will need more than one group... for example, the War of the Ring and the Quest of Mount Doom definitely have a lot of overlapping events! which is what "dies of starvation" implies. So, er, if you can remove it from the title, I would feel happier. In face of overwhelming opposition from people whose opinion I respect, not to mention evidence that it was a somewhat squirrely deduction , I removed "of Starvation" from the title last night. (I left the "Dies" part, though...) *snork* Barbara - don't you just love it when we manage to scare Lyllyn? LOL! - Barbara

 

Guess you'd discovered the Appendices by then, whereas I was definitely slow on the uptake... Hmm, maybe should I admit I first read LotR 25 years ago, my paperback copy of the Silm (and my original copy of LotR - the one held together by sellotape that I had to replace with a new copy last year) is dated 1979 and I know I was bought my copy of UT within a year of it coming out in paperback in 1982. (Much more recent acquaintance with HoMe though.) So ah, yes, I think I had discovered the Appendices somewhat before you. (I left the "Dies" part, though...) Oops, yes, that is kind of essential to the entry title, isn't it. Cheers, Liz

 

I know we have a new thread already, but I thought it's easier to reply here. (I'm gone for two days and there's 30 posts to process, what have you been doing?! ) How about "Attacking Forces" and "Defensive Forces"? Sound good to me too. I'm blanking out on what to say about the naming of events, but from what I read (and understood), it's good. My only (rather poor) excuse is that those were put in when I was trying to get some stuff into the database and had an empty Second Age. It's what prompted me to do Arnor's genealogy though. Firstly, I think Barbara and I joined HASA at around the same time, and while I thought Resources was a great idea, I was frustrated by how little information there was in it at the time. Which is not a criticism - these things take time to build up. These days, I am amazed at how much information it does contain, and surprised when something isn't in the database - and that's very much down to the wonderful work by Lyllyn, Barbara, Loqi and all the others. Wow, I must be a pretty early bird then. I was here when there were only Character Bios.Then Timeline popped up followed by Places and Things. I remember when it first came out, there was a lull when there was very little entry making, turned out nobody knew where to start first. And your wonderful work Liz, you contributed too. However, the more data we accumulate, the more I think the relationships between different pieces of data become important. Which is why I do like in-text links, Barbara wonderful "battle overview" templates and this idea of "event groups". I can see that it would be really helpful to pull many different sequences of events into groups - and that some events may even sit in more than one group. I can see it too. I think the "event groups" idea would really help, instead of a backlog of separate entries all on the same event. Yep, long lists of rulers... b-o-r-i-n-g. (Until I started on my Genealogies, and suddenly every morsel of information from that chapter of UT edit: and the Appendices became scintillatingly fascinating...) Funny, the Appendices were always fascinating to me, it's what prompted me to read Silm and UT. And I *loved* the long list of rulers. OT, but I've been meaning to ask: is "Arda" on your list of Places to be done? NO! (Flees into the night.) *snork* Barbara - don't you just love it when we manage to scare Lyllyn? *laugh* Now here's a sight we rarely see. It's usually the other way around.

 

(I'm gone for two days and there's 30 posts to process, what have you been doing?! ) Talking instead of doing... I'm blanking out on what to say about the naming of events, but from what I read (and understood), it's good. Thanks! My only (rather poor) excuse is that those were put in when I was trying to get some stuff into the database and had an empty Second Age. It's what prompted me to do Arnor's genealogy though. An empty database is a terrible thing to waste... Which is why I do like in-text links, Barbara wonderful "battle overview" templates and this idea of "event groups". I can see that it would be really helpful to pull many different sequences of events into groups - and that some events may even sit in more than one group. I can see it too. I think the "event groups" idea would really help, instead of a backlog of separate entries all on the same event. Good! Glad you agree! (BTW, as I envision Event Groups, each event for, say, the Battle of the Pelennor, titled "X does Y to Z" would have "BotP" as a subtitle under the name, instead of having a title of "X does Y to Z in the BoTP"... So, we would still have 20 events for the BoTP, they'd just be marked differently... and the titles would be shorter. And we could associate the same event with both the Siege of Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor without incurring screams from Entish-title haters... - Barbara

 

• Forums Home
• 1 Month of Posts
• FAQs

Forum Conferences

• Challenges
• General
• Members
• Resources
• Stories

A conference is a collection of forums.

Intended for: General Audience

This forum is open to all HASA members. It is read-only for the general public.

Membership on HASA is free and it takes only a few minutes to join. If you would like to participate, please click here.

If you are already a member, please log in to participate.

« Back to Reference Library - entries, requests, etc.

• Citations for Tolkien's writings
• Maiar, The
• Valar, The