"futuristic" map
Geophysics and Geology Professor Peter Bird of UCLA has created a map that is like a mix of Middle-earth and modern Europe. An article about his attempt can be seen here, but the links pointing at his original site aren't working. I think it would be a nice addition to this article, but licensing it would be problematic? Sage (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- A bit of reverse image searching has located the domain http://peterbird.name and the image is linked at the bottom of the page!
- His contact details are available on this page, but given that it is a pubic domain and we are a not-for-profit it should fall under fair use.
- PS. I think it is a very interesting image and certainly worthwhile of inclusion.JR Snow (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Where does it say they are pubic domain? Sage (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- The top of the page says "You are welcome to download many of my finite-element and graphical programs, and to use any figures, maps, or images that you might find useful in teaching or research presentations.", so to me it is clear he is happy for the images to be shared in a teaching environment, which as a not-for-profit Wiki we surely includes TG?
- I am not suggesting you should not contact him to ask, but I don't imagine given the above quote he would object. JR Snow (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Where does it say they are pubic domain? Sage (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Year calculation pedantry
After a convo on the Discord in which much arithmetic was done on JRRT's "16k year" statement, I think the correct calculated BC years for the ends of the 1A, 2A, and 3A in the NOME paradigm are as follows:
1) Benchmark: YS 310 was 16,000 years ago in 1960 AD.
2) YS 310 was 14,040 years ago in 1 BC (there is no 0 BC). Therefore YS 310 = 14,041 BC.
3) In this scheme, the YS/Bel. period is 600 years long, not 590; therefore YS 600 = 13,751 BC.
4) Therefore SA 3441 = 10,310 BC and TA 3021 = 7,289 BC.
Hostetter came up with 7,288 at this last step because he was calculating "years before;" 7,288 years before 1 BC is 7,289 BC. --Mord 03:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Out-of-universe?
To Sage's inquiries about this article being written from an out-of-universe POV - how would you do it from an in-universe POV, given the fact that the entire article is based upon 4 different, separate conceptions of ME history (or rather its future)? IvarTheBoneless (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think it can't be written as a perfectly satisfying article, but we can try. A large portion of the article does not concern the Ages themselves but are about the temporal distance to the present era. I don't say that it should be removed, just to be kept under a section, and include some IU POV as well as the "main" text.
- We can consider any information about the future of the Elves, Dwarves etc, some prophecies, in the narrative, the Appendices, HoME, Aelfwine, perhaps showing a preference to sources contemporary to or later than LOTR. We can include some of Tolkien's opinions (if any, from Letters or essays) just not quoted directly to keep the IU illusion (according to the MoS). Perhaps can we consider Notion Club sources too? Sage (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but I think that of we do, we should consider moving this page to Seventh Age and disregarding the other later Ages as Tolkien literally never wrote anything set in the Fifth Age and the Sixth Age.Dour1234 (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think the article now as it is, mostly concerns the "Seventh Age" and its length already, rather than anything else. And yea, perhaps adding info about Aelfwine etc would balance it even farther forward. But I still think we should try to conform the article more to the MoS. One first step would be to replace "Tolkien says this about Eldarion in HoMe..." to a prose IU text. Sage (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Also, adding things from The Notion Club Papers's Foreword would be good.Dour1234 (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps that text about Eldarion could be interpreted as the Reunited Kingdom only enduring for "a hundred generations of Men after" the end of Eldarion's reign and that "a new age" (the Fifth Age) began when the Reunited Kingdom no longer endured, thereby breaking up into "many realms” ruled by the descendants of Eldarion?Dour1234 (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose there's an argument to be made to create articles for the 'Fifth Age' (after 'hundred generations') and for the 'Sixth Age' (after that and before Eru's incarnation). Not to mention the Seventh Age. IvarTheBoneless (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think the article now as it is, mostly concerns the "Seventh Age" and its length already, rather than anything else. And yea, perhaps adding info about Aelfwine etc would balance it even farther forward. But I still think we should try to conform the article more to the MoS. One first step would be to replace "Tolkien says this about Eldarion in HoMe..." to a prose IU text. Sage (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- There are only 4 main sources for Ages beyond the Fourth Age, and 3 of them are already included.
- Trying to turn this into a 'normal' article is a disaster. And unless there's some new information regarding Fifth and Sixth Ages - there won't be any new developments either. And there won't be. IvarTheBoneless (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but I think that of we do, we should consider moving this page to Seventh Age and disregarding the other later Ages as Tolkien literally never wrote anything set in the Fifth Age and the Sixth Age.Dour1234 (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)