User:Yaulendil/Timeline ideas

I'm not going to remember everything I need to put in this list. Sorry for the disorganization, I'm thinking aloud here.

If you have answers to questions I wrote down in these to-do lists, @ me on Discord or post on the Talk/Discussion page of my User page or of this page.

Timeline articles to-do lists

General

General (formatting)

• Decide how much to simplify long {{rp}} tags.
  • Currently, I have included all information that would be included in a full citation in the References section. For example, if a full citation would've been appended with ":Note on §1, p. 123", I'd use the {{rp}} tag to show: ^{:Note on §1, p. 123} This might be too bad for casual readability. (Although Wikipedia does seem to be okay with using {{rp}} this way, or for even longer strings, but I don't know in what contexts they're recommending this.)
  • Options:
    • Keep it that long:
      • Example 1.^{:Note on §1, p. 123}
      • Example 2.^{:Note 1, p. 123}
    • Reorder it to be unlike the full-citation version:
      • Example 1.^{:123, Note §1}
      • Example 2.^{:123, Note 1}
    • Reorder and abbreviate more:
      • Example 1.^{:123, §1}
        • How about Example 1?^:123:§1
        • How about Example 1?^:§1:123
      • Example 2.^{:123, Note 1}
        • Or Example 2?^{:123, N.1}
        • Or Example 2?^{:123, n.1}
        • Or Example 2?^:123:n.1
        • Or Example 2?^:n.1:123
    • Forget about pointing to §# or Note #, just do page alone:
      • Example 1.^:123
      • Example 2.^:123
    • Don't use {{rp}} tags. Put full citations in References section, even if that means 300 references.
      • Example 1.
      • Example 2.
    • Don't use {{rp}} tags. But you can use the same generic {{AA}} and {{GA}} tag for any citation that falls in the same year of those texts and isn't in a different year, in a note, or in a commentary section.
      • Example 1.
      • Example 2.
• Consider using ^{:p. 123} instead of ^:123 if there are a bunch of ^:§123?
  • There are maybe some benefits to this, but probably not enough to outweigh the importance of keeping all the refs as short and uncluttered as possible.
• Should I remove spaces between pages or paragraph numbers separated by commas?
  • ^{:123,456–789} versus ^{:123, 456–789}, and ^{:§§12,34–56} versus ^{:§§12, 34–56}
    • So far I've done the latter, but former is probably better.
• Should I include ^:Footnote for the YS 322, 336, 337 entries? Or just use the base ref?
  • And I don't know if you can call it a footnote. It's kind of just a note in the middle of the page. A midnote.
• Figure out whether to keep all the refs I have or reduce them when arguably redundant.
• Figure out whether to order ref tags by number or by the "priority" of the source.
  • By number: ^[1][2][3]
  • By priority: The latest or "most canon" for lack of a better term goes first.
  • By whether there's a reference page template:
    • If only one with a reference page template, put that last.^{[2][3][1]:999}
    • If multiple, place longest reference page template last: ^{[3][2]:999[1]:999, Commentary on §5}
    • The above three are in no particular order.
• Decide how to make the Nota Bene intra-article links^NB more noticeable when there are a bunch of ref tags.
  • Example of the problem: Like this.^{:123:Note on §§1–900, pp. 123–789, first letter of every sentenceNB}
  • Possible solutions:
    • Place the NB in brackets as well? (And apply that to other pages like Gil-galad's for consistency?)
    • Change the color of the NB tag? (Can you change the color of an intra-page link?)
    • Whatever solution is chosen, it should probably become its own template, so that any changes to the scheme (brackets, colors) can be applied across the site.
      • Maybe a template whose parameter is a heading or anchor in the page.
    • Maybe I don't need a solution, maybe just having a Discrepancies section (or whatever) gets sufficient attention to the NBs.
    • Do a dotted or dashed underline for NBs.
      • Example: In a recently-discovered note by Tolkien, Gil-galad is revealed to be the son of Finrun, the fourth son of Finwë.^NB
        • Hm, the dashed underline doesn't show up with <sup style=border-bottom:1px dashed">[[#Timeline articles to-do lists|NB]]</sup>
          • ^NB
            • That works, at least. Just had to include all the other copy-pasted stuff I don't understand. But it's also that {{rp}} smaller size.
          • ^NB
            • Okay, that's a normal size. When I took out the stuff before the 70% font-size, it created a strange gap between the ref and the NB.
            • ^NB
              • This might be preferable, to distinguish it from the dashed underlines of the {{rpex}} idea.
  • However you do it, maybe NBs should become a template, so that if you do make a change to how it looks it gets applied everywhere at once.
• See if I can create "anchors" to link the ^NB tags to, so I don't have to make subheaders to link to instead.
• Decide on whether I can use colons twice in one full reference.
  • Illustration of different options:
    • John Arthurson, Alwin Arundel Lowdham (ed.), Quenta Eldalien, "Part Two. The Avalôi": §1, p. 123: "There's no difference between a Vala and an Elda."
    • John Arthurson, Alwin Arundel Lowdham (ed.), Quenta Eldalien, "Part Two. The Avalôi": §1, p. 123, "There's no difference between a Vala and an Elda."
    • John Arthurson, Alwin Arundel Lowdham (ed.), Quenta Eldalien, "Part Two. The Avalôi", §1, p. 123: "There's no difference between a Vala and an Elda."
      • Note how this option breaks what the citation templates normally spit out; they always separate the chapter (or even subchapter?) titles from the paragraph or note descriptors with a colon. And yet it seems to flow better to me?
  • (From User:Yaulendil/Template ideas:) By the way, should it perhaps be "Commentary on §[etc.]" instead of "Note on §[etc.]"? Since that's how HoMe describes it and it helps distinguish Commentary section notes from the Notes sections?
• The previous to-do brings up a whole possible discussion on the use of colons in references, probably the most pedantic thing I've thought of.
  • Generally references on TG follow this format: Author McAuthorson, Editor McEditorson (ed.), The Title of the Book, "Part One: The Title of Part One:The Title of the Chapter", "Any further specification, whether in the book as a subchapter or not, like 'The new genealogies of the Edain' or 'Hador table II'": §1 or Note on §1, p. ###: "A selected quote from the reference. Note that separating the chapter title from "§#" or "Note on §#" is hardwired into the citation templates. An editor could choose to follow "§#" or "Note on §#" with a colon before "p. ###", but I've never seen that done. But I have seen editors separate "p. ###" from a following quote with a colon, as on a reference in the main Timeline page.
  • I've compared this to references on Wikipedia, or at least examples of references on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources. I never see them use colons in their references, everything is divided by commas. But they clearly do things differently from TG, for example they place periods after the page numbers. And I haven't seen any examples where they specify chapters of a book, of subchapters of a book, on paragraph numbers or notes, or include quotes (except using the page reference template). Nonetheless, if everything was separated by commas, including "§#" or "Note on §#", I wouldn't feel so bad about including a colon between "p. ###" and the quote as the one model reference on the Timeline page does. But I can't abandon putting a colon between the end of the normal reference and other things so long as the citation templates put colons between the normal reference and "§#" and "Note on §#".
• Consider when writing the above:
  • Choose whether to separate details (before the page number) from the bulk of the citation (down to chapter titles or subheadings) with a comma or a colon.
    • If using a colon, then it might look bad if I need use a colon after the page number before a quote or something, like the first ref in the main Timeline article.
      • Possible solution: put the stuff I would naturally put between the chapter titles and the page numbers after the page numbers? Like "Chapter 14": Hador table II, p. 234 versus "Chapter 14", p. 234: Hador table II.
• Change page citation style from i.e. "pp. 123-124" to "pp. 123-4."
  • Done, for the Timeline/First Age page at least.
• When a ref tag occurs within bolded text, unbold the ref tag, even if it's in between two bolded words.
  • Example:
    • Wrong: Gandalf had a funny face.^:999 Yet he also had style; and grace.^:1000
    • Right: Gandalf had a funny face.^:999 Yet he also had style; and grace.^:1000
    • I wouldn't be surprised if others disagree on this, though.
• Change refs to The Silmarillion chapters to general Cite DTP refs without the decimals for paragraph numbers.
• See above:
  • Change non-Appendix Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion refs to Cite DTP?
    • But note you can't do generic citations this way.
      • Yes you can, like:
        • SDigital Tolkien Project Citation SystemsJ.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion
        • S QSDigital Tolkien Project Citation SystemsJ.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, "Quenta Silmarillion"
        • S QS.01Digital Tolkien Project Citation SystemsJ.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, "Quenta Silmarillion", "Of the Beginning of Days"
• Check to make sure refs are reused by naming them and that the same ref doesn't appear more than once in References section.
• Choose whether to include two refs for different aspects of a sentence both at the end of the sentence or broken up within the sentence.
  • i.e., "The Edain,^[1] and a few Druedain,^[2] reach Numenor." versus "The Edain, and a few Druedain, reach Numenor.^[1][2]"
    • Or for real Orc mode: "The Edain,^[1] and a few Druedain,^[2] reach Numenor.^[1]"
  • If you group refs together at the end of a sentence, annotations could point to which ref corresponds to which info in the preceding clause, sentence or paragraph?
  • Consider Wikipedia:Citing sources#Text-source integrity
  • I wish that the user interface worked so that whenever you made a reference, you also highlighted a stretch of text, or put some code stuff around a stretch or multiple stretches, attached to the reference. And when a reader hovers over the inline ref, not only do you get a popup of the full ref, you also see the applicable text highlighted. I wonder if any alternative wiki software has that as the default setup.
    • Wikipedia suggests maybe using hidden comments containing repeats of the ref at the end of each sentence, that's kind of similar.
    • Compare also "Dubious span".
• Use the same ref multiple times in the same line or sentence for different births, deaths, or statements?
  • Pros: Removes ambiguity as to whether a ref covers only the preceding clause or the preceding sentence, line, or whole year.
  • Cons: Citation overkill.
  • I should probably use the same citations redundantly even in the same line, like the births of Haleth and Haldar in FA 341, or the birth of Beren and death of Boromir in FA 432. Mith did that in 4A 19, using the same citation for the birth of Robin Gardner and death of Farmer Cotton.
    • Cons: The Fourth Age doesn't have a lot of opportunities for those, so you can get away with it there. If I follow through with this in the First Age it might look ridiculous.
      • Oh well, probably better to play it safe and then clean up redundancies later.)
• Should I shorten the (informational) length of refs, like referencing the single paragraph where a battle begins rather than all the paragraphs that describe the battle?
• Should I make use of notes within references?
  • Cons: I feel like they'd be easier for readers to miss, compared to ^{[1][note 1]}. But I have seen this used, see the reference for Celebrian's birth c. 300 in Second Age Timeline.
  • These might be what are called "Annotations".
    • Annotations are a broader or separate concept. Wikipedia:Citing sources guide describes annotations and then describes quotes.
• Use short citations in places?
  • Particularly if forced to use a citation in a note, where I don't think you can add a ref?
    • See also "refn" on Wikipedia.
  • Maybe in the References section, if short refs can be linked to the first, and long, ref to the same work in the section.
    • Looks like short citations would link to a Notes section, rather than the References section.
  • Maybe TG doesn't have templates for short refs or for linking short refs to long refs in the References section, though.
• Include a Sources section separate from the References section?
  • Pros: This could list just the major sources of year dates in the article, and help readers understand where this information is coming from at a glance if the References section no longer does, which becomes increasingly likely the more specifically refs are used.
  • I can find examples of the same source being used in both a References and Sources section (Wikipedia article, African humid period) and in an In-text citation and References subsection of a Footnotes section (Wikipedia artile, Tezcatlipoca).
  • Could also do "References" and "General references".
    • But could you link to both...? What if you could have one inline citation go to both References, as a full citation, and General references, as a full citation but without paragraph or page numbers and so all appearing together?
• Remove refs from lead section?
  • Currently the only one is about the First Age beginning in YT 1050, which is repeated in the timeline entry for that year.
    • But the idea that the First Age began in YS 1 is so common it's probably worth keeping in the lead.
• Rename ref names more appropriately?
  • Always associate it with something within the inline citation?
• (Originally had "Consider that some years might be plus or minus one?" here.)
  • ("Or if Tuor was enslaved for 3 years....")
    • Also consider short notes, like on Third Age 3019, the note "This date is based on the reference that the Battle of Dale lasted 3 days."
• Should I have left all those <br> where they were? Were those load-bearing?
• Is there a version of the references template that puts the references within a scroll box or scrolling window?
  • Wikipedia is firmly against scroll boxes for reference sections.
    • I can't remember if Wookieepedia used them for refs or just for like lists of vehicles or species appearing in a work and stuff.
  • I wonder what the largest References section on this wiki is.
• Consider "refn" on Wikipedia.
• Consider Help:Citation tools#Duplicate reference finders, on Wikipedia
• Make sure there aren't any repeat references in Reference section that I can't bundle up with reference page templates.
• Break up generic citations by specific ones?
  • i.e., break up Annals refs by paragraph number, or break up Line of Elros refs by the number of the ruler the info is under.
    • Done.
  • Pros: It's more exact.
  • Cons: It makes the References section more unwieldy, and lowers the ease of seeing where most of this information comes from at a glance at the References section. Citation overkill.
    • In regards to the Con above, I even considered adding ^{[a][b][c][d][e]} tags linking to the Notes section, so that there you can see the relative sizes of citations for the major timeline sources (AAm, GA, HoMe XI Chapter 14 marginal notes, Edain genealogical tables, Wanderings timelines, Tale of Years stages), even if the References section is too long and broken up.
  • Consider Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source
  • Consider having them all with a generic ref, and then that generic ref is bulleted?
    • Only if you can get the inline ref to link to/make a popup window to the bulleted line, rather than the parent of all the bullets. That's not how it is in the Wikipedia example.
      • A crazy way to do it: Make like five different References sections, one for each of the major sources. Or perhaps you could have subsections under a section.
        • But how would you get each ref to show up under the appropriate section or subsection? Maybe it's similar to "group=note"? But then the source might have to show up in the superscript brackets, like ^{[Grey Annals 1]}.
  • Consider Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes
  • A method I just discovered: Sometimes there's a ref with a colon and page number following it still in superscript. Like example.^:123 Or another example, or test rather.^:§99 A third.^{:§99, p. 123} But I bet the last wouldn't be appreciated. Hm.^§99:123
    • It's with a template for "rp" after a "ref" template: like this.^:789 And this.^:§99
    • And the way they do it on the First Age 390 page is to do either paragraph numbers or page numbers. It doesn't make much sense to not use one or the other.
    • See also Wikipedia:Citation underkill#Citing different page numbers
    • I went with this.
• Include brief quotes within the references, after the page number?
  • i.e. for ambiguous cases, like Aldarion's second voyage being three years after his first return. I saw this used somewhere. Oh, on the main Timeline article, first reference.
    • Ended up using this for FA 491.
      • And a bunch of other cases, particularly with "The Mariner's Wife".
• Can we use reference templates to reference a range of paragraphs instead of a single paragraph?
  • §§1-5?
    • Maybe you can just do "J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), Morgoth's Ring, "Part Two. The Annals of Aman": §1-§5, pp. 48-50"?
      • That does seem to work. I thought those templates didn't come out on User pages. And then "-§5, pp. 48-50".
  • I detail this in User:Yaulendil/Template ideas.

General (actual timeline stuff)

• Consider pruning.
  • Does YT 1050 need to mention that 144 Elves awoke, and that they were the Minyar, Tatyar, and Nelyar? Or can it just say the Elves awoke and include the specifics in the article for that year?
    • Removing it would also help with citation overkill. The more additions beyond the Annals or Tale of Years or Line of Elros removed, the less I have to decide whether to include refs for them and if I do where to put them.
  • Consider removing anything that isn't explicitly tied to a particular year, things like "Over the next X years...", even if it's quite important. Non-Timeline pages can cover that.
    • Also, many things listed in a year's annal might not occur in that year, see my discussions on whether the First War began in VY 1 or whether Melkor found Ungoliant in YT 1492 or not until 1495.
• When I've used multiple citations, use only the later refs, even when the earlier refs are important
  • Examples are YS 490 to YS 502, Grey Annals (earlier) vs. Wanderings (later), and c. YS 500 to YS 590, Tale of Years Scheme A (earlier) vs. Scheme B (later).
  • In some cases the earlier annals do include unique information, but you can expect the reader who looks up the later ref to see that for example Scheme B refers back to Scheme A's information and just shows how the dates of Scheme A were moved.
• Consider whether I should include refs for all facts or just refs for pegging an event to a particular year.
  • That's untenable. Everything has to be referenced, even if it's also referenced in the year-specific page, right? But it would be nice if there was a way to indicate whether a ref is for pegging it to a particular year or just showing where the event described is described in the texts.
• Create pages for redlinks of years I've added. Or...
  • ...do not redlink them, just unlink them, especially if I should add a "c." before them since they're approximate anyway.
    • Particularly with FA 330.
  • Current redlinks: FA 330, FA 391, SA 901.
• Add a "c." before years if appropriate.
  • Candidates: FA 491, SA 730, SA 733.
  • What about if some of the info in that year is dated specifically and some is approximately?
• Finish making notes about discrepancies between the various layers of timelines.
  • Separate the discrepancy-related notes into a section of text under a "Discrepancies" heading, and change note-tags to "NB"-tags that link to subheadings for each relevant year? Compare the NB in the Gil-galad page.
• Consider putting the Discrepancies into a second table like the main timeline?
• "Discrepancies" should perhaps not be used as I use it now. It should be for when things created discrepancies in the same "layer", not when new layers create discrepancies with things from previous layers either by partially or not at all overlapping.
• Consider that some years might be plus or minus one?
  • Like with years of someone's life when we don't know what time of the year they were born. When Aldarion is 50, born 700, that could be 750, but if he wasn't born on January 1, this could include some of 701.
  • Or if Tuor was enslaved for 3 years, and we know he was enslaved in FA 488, he could escape in 491, but could it also be 490 or 492?
• Go through each year-specific article, comparing them to the respective in the articles for each Age, and decide what in the year-specific articles that isn't in the Age-articles should be included in the latter, and what in the Age-articles is too detailed and should only be in the year-specific articles.
• Go through pages for individual years, compare them to entries in the Timeline pages.
  • There might be stuff in the individual pages that belong on the Timeline page entries for that year, and there might be stuff on the Timeline page entries for that year that belong in the individual pages and should be removed from the Timeline page entries.
• Add a note about 1 VY equaling 144 solar years alongside the one about 1 VY equaling 9.582 solar years, depending on how agnostic with regard to version the article should be.
  • If Tolkien did note himself the problems with applying 144 solar years to the timeline where the pre-Beleriandic Years of the Trees are YT 1 to YT 1500 (in NoMe?), note that, and regardless note how most of the timelines Tolkien played around with after switching to 144 solar years (as seen in Part 1 of NoMe, where the ranges are VY 1 to VY 888, or VY 1 to VY 1728, maybe others) are very different from the YT 1 to YT 1500 version.
    • He did that note, see NoMe p. 78 or p. 72 or somewhere around there, maybe p. 71. Oh, see below.
• In Timeline/Days before days and Timeline/Years of the Trees, include dates converted according to 144 solar year VYs.
  • Only if Tolkien had at least toyed or noted turning down in writing the idea of keeping the old timeline after having moved to 144 solar year VYs?
    • He did, see NoMe p. 71. He notes the 720 years of wanderings for Fingolfin, and his quickest solution is to make the Crossing of the Ice happen all within YT 1496, instead of something more drastic; I think there may have been a few other slightly different solutions, but I think it goes to show that especially for pre-1495 dates (but also for 1495–1500, since he at least considered them), it would be "acceptable" to show conversions of VYs to 144 SYs as well as 9.582 SYs., at least in the Days before days and Years of the Trees Timeline pages.
      • Did the change from 9.582 SYs to 144 SYs come before or after the settling on a Round World mythology?

Timeline/First Age

• Get citations for years specified by the stories of Turin and Tuor, in the Silmarillion, Narn, or Tale of Tuor.
  • Got them from Unfinished Tales, I doubt the 2007 Children of Hurin changes the years but I didn't check.
• Don't forget sources for the deaths of Hundar and Gloredhel. Good source for Hundar might be HoMe XI p. 281. The generic Annal citation won't cover both of them (never mind, it does for Gloredhel), even if it covers all the other deaths.
• Break up generic AA and GA refs by specific ones? (See General list.)
• Finish making notes about discrepancies between the various layers of timelines. (See General list.)
• Check Of Dwarves and Men in HoMe XII for any additional differences in the timeline of the entry of Men into Beleriand, 310 to 314 or so.
• Add a section, separate from "Discrepancies" or anything, about how the timeline was "built" from the consecutive layers?
  • Annals of Aman and then Grey Annals as a base, the latest versions and emendations of both, VY 1 to YS 499, then HoMe XI Ch. 14 dates rewriting from YS 262 to YS 450, then Mannish genealogical section dates, then Tale of Years Schemes A, B, C, and D rewriting from YS 497 to YS 590, then Wanderings of Hurin timeline rewriting from YS 490 to YS 502, and a few earlier birthyears.
    • And how this page stops factoring stuff in after Tolkien has moved into other ranges detailed in NoMe, where the pre-Beleriandic First Age is from like VY 850 to VY 888, or VY 866 to VY 888, or from something to VY 1728, relegating those to OVOTL/Later versions.
      • But I do think this timeline should include a Round World version reflected in the Discrepancies or somewhere, since that was played with going back to the 1940s.
    • And how Later Annals of Valinor and Beleriand and older would be not OVOTL/Earlier versions, but would be other articles entirely since the "First Age" did not exist under that name when those were written (though there was "First Ages of the World" or something).
  • Something like "Rationale for including dates". But that's not a very good one.
• Discrepancy or OVOTL about Hador switching places in the generations with Magor.
• Specific issues by year:
  • YT 1050
    • Could Melian ascending Taniquetil and coming to Middle-earth be after 1050?
      • GA makes it explicit that Melian arrives this specific year. Currently I've got the AA as a ref.
  • YT 1080
    • Change "possible" to "possibly"? Like with births of Idril and Finduilas?
  • YT 1090
    • Better source for "earth shaken"?
      • It was in the annal for YT 1092, I moved it there. Even published Silm refers to shaking of Earth happening after Valar arrive at Utumno.
    • Considered moving bay-formation and breaking to YT 1092.
      • But it is described in the annal for YT 1090–1092 so I will keep it in the earlier of the two.
  • YT 1099
    • Annals sources don't specify Sauron evading capture.
  • YT 1105
    • Sources don't mention Morwe and Nurwe.
      • Yes they did, I forgot.
        • But there is a note in HoMe XII p. 418 about Morwe and Nurwe being abandoned concepts that should be considered (in removing them from this entry; maybe at least move them just to the year-specific page) or at least noted.
  • YT 1115
    • Should probably replace "Lindar" with "Nandor", even though "Lindar" is technically true.
    • Include a note that in an earlier version Indis, here the mother of Feanor, gave birth to Feanor, and died in this annal?
  • YT 1128
    • Finwe not actually mentioned until YT 1130 annal.
      • I think that was only in AA, I used GA for it.
  • YT 1132
    • Source doesn't actually mention Isle of Balar being left behind.
      • AA doesn't, but GA does.
  • YT 1140
    • Changed "closer to Valinor" to "to Valinor".
    • Note that this pushed me to change generic mentions of "in Valinor" to "in Aman" (for example Fingon's birth in YT 1260), since this entry makes the distinction between Valinor narrowly defined and Aman relevant.
  • YT 1149
    • The name "Falathrim" not mentioned in the source.
      • I used the published Silm.
        • Hm, maybe there's a second version of the Later QS that uses it? Like the Second Phase Unrest?
    • Does anything say that Cirdan himself established Brithombar and Eldarest?
      • I changed it to the Falathrim as a people establishing them, and just mention that Cirdan is their lord (but not saying when he became their lord or if he played a role in the construction of the Havens).
        • Maybe check the Last Writings?
  • YT 1151 1161
    • The name "Falmari" not mentioned in the source. Also awkward definition of it; are only Teleri who stay on Eressea after some sail to Eldamar considered Falmari?
      • Done.
  • YT 1152
    • Source doesn't mention Thingol's silver hair.
      • GA does.
        • It's not overwhelmingly clear, though, that his silver hair is new, and only appeared after his trance. "Now he appeared as it were a lord of the Maiar." His looking like a lord of the Maiar is definitely new, and his silver hair among other things is described after that, but that doesn't mean his silver hair is new. It might have been silver before and after, just only after does it look Maiar-ishly silver.
          • Ivar pointed out that he shares the color with his brothers, at least in some version. I've removed it.
    • Note also that AA says he's the King of all Elves in Beleriand while GA says King of the Eglath.
  • YT 1165
    • Maybe reword second sentence to make it clear there is no implication that Teleri live in Tirion.
      • Done.
    • Annal 1165 doesn't explicitly say they live with the Valar. This entry is dependent on what YT 1140 said previously, but that probably doesn't warrant adding another ref tag to that.
    • Note that there's a discrepancy between the migration of the Vanyar ending here and it ending in YT 1260 in that NoMe passage.
  • YT 1169
    • Maybe include a note that these events occurred in YT 1179 in an earlier version?
      • And that, in an even earlier version, YT 1179 was when Finrod (Finarfin) married Earwen?
    • Any chance the YT 1179 entries for Aule and Rumil remained in YT 1179 and didn't go along with Feanor's birth to YT 1169? I doubt it, but worth double-checking.
    • Annal YT 1179/1169 doesn't explicitly say that the symbols made by Rumil were the Sarati, yet.
      • Nor does it alone suggest that the lore he wrote down included the Ainulindale. Is this just being put together by the fact that the Ainulindale is the only work of Rumil's we know of?
  • YT 1172 to YT 1185
    • From Discord:

      • Hm, actually Note 1 on p. 101 says the Doom of Mandos was proclaimed in 1172, somehow I added that reference without changing it from 1182 to 1172. Oh, because then the second reference, to the Earliest Version of F&M on p. 206, emends it. But even in that version on p. 206 the Doom is proclaimed in 1172. So I'll need to break what's written for 1182 into two separate lines, one for 1172 and one for 1182.
        
        I fixed Timeline/First Age so that it's consistent with at least the latest edits to AAm and the Earliest Version of F&M (which was probably written around the same time as those latest edits to AAm). Death at 1170, Doom proclaimed at 1172, "doom of disunion spoken" at 1182, Finwe remarries 1185. Earliest Version doesn't specify a 1172 date, it just says "a few years", so I have to cite both AAm and Earliest Version.
        
        Just going off the summaries in Statute_of_Finwë_and_Míriel#Other versions of the legendarium, the timeline in LACE is probably death at 1170, Doom proclaimed (or at least Finwe seeks counsel from the Valar) at 1180, it doesn't say when the waiting period is over or when Finwe remarries.
        
        The timeline in Later Versions of F&M seems to be death at 1170 (assuming her death year wasn't changed), Doom proclaimed at 1182 (editing after looking at the text itself, Of Finwe and Miriel starting on p. 256: §10), waiting period over at 1194 (§21) (and Finwe remarries at 1197: §23). Also assuming these are still Valian Years.
        
        For now Timeline/First Age will just reflect the earliest of these versions. The Later Versions would cause a discrepancy with the birth of Fingolfin in 1190 anyway. I'll need to summarize these complications in whatever manner I end up summarizing all the First Age timeline discrepancies and changes.
        
        I was surprised to find Year of the Trees 1172 already existed, but was missing from the Template:Ardayearheader of the pages from 1165 to 1190. The 1172 page says "This date was changed to Y.T. 1182 in the later text", the later text I guess being the second citation, pp. 205–7, but as far as I can tell the Earliest Version of F&M never pushes the dates forward, it should probably cite wherever Laters Versions of F&M mentions 1182 or "twelve years".

        (17 March 2025)
  • YT 1200
    • Technically GA says Luthien's birth year is unknown?
      • Reflected, with "Traditional dating".
  • YT 1260
    • See YT 1165, about the discrepancy in when the migration of the Vanyar ended.
  • YT 1300
    • Should it be modified to reflect some kind of bettering or refinement of the Certhas Daeron, rather than creation? And if this is to reflect a later version of the legendarium, would it make sense to place the "bettering" in YT 1300 in the first place? If not, maybe this should only have a note about Daeron creating it outright in an earlier version?
      • Amalcarin pointed out this idea shows up in Appendix E, but in it it occurs after the Noldor have brought Tengwar to Beleriand. Should probably just pick whichever of these dates are later (1300 or 1350; might be impossible to tell which is later for sure) and note the change in "Discrepancies". Or, use the exact language of the footnote; "contrived" in one, "devised" in another?
  • YT 1330
    • A note to show that in AA Orcs first appear in YT 1320?
      • Noted.
  • YT 1350
    • See YT 1300 above. Base GA says Daeron creates the Certh this year, in an later timeline where they are created in YT 1300, and later bettered, is that bettering ever specifically said to be in YT 1350?
  • YT 1362
    • See Note 9, p. 102, HoMe X. Isfin born 1496. Do we know for sure that the note about Isfin and Galadriel in 1362 earlier?
      • Well, Note 9 is struck out, Note 8 apparently never was.
    • But either way, note it in Discrepancies.
  • YT 1410
    • Strictly this refers to Morgoth being aloud to go about Valinor beyond Valimar this year, not sure if he befriends the Noldor as early as this year.
      • Done.
  • YT 1449
    • This annal does not actually say anything specific of silima.
      • I removed it. Potentially RGEO might have something that warrants it being in this entry.
        • No, Ivar checked.
  • YT 1450
    • Where does it specify the next 20 years? Is that a mistake for the next 40 years?
      • I changed it to 40. Thinking it might've been due to the 20-year exile of Feanor to Formenos in those versions. Potentially could be missing something, but probably not.
  • YT 1479
    • Add Idril's birthyear, cited on her own page from NoMe.
    • But see also NoMe p. 80 for a possibly different version.
      • And did Tolkien pick that date when the First Age Years of the Trees were YT 1050 to YT 1500? He hadn't started to change it to YT 888, YT 1728 kind of ranges?
  • YT 1490
    • ref for this year needs Note 10, changing 20 years of exile to 12 years.
      • Wait, no. Note 10 still ends in "twenty". Does anything say "twelve"?
        • Second Phase of Later QS.
    • Source does not specifically mention Feanor's seven sons, nor the council meeting or use of a sword.
      • Second Phase of Later QS does.
  • YT 1492
    • I had some doubts that Melkor meets Ungoliant in this year, wondering if he just escapes pursuit and goes south, and doesn't find her until YT 1495, especially with how immediate events seem to go in the descriptions in Later Quenta Silmarillion. But the annal for YT 1495 beings "Having well laid their plans", which implies they may have spent those 3 VYs in preparation.
  • YT 1495
    • Might be worth including Melian's work against Ungoliant from GA.
    • Change "swanships" to "Swan-ships"?
  • YT 1496
    • Not explicit in source that Finrod becomes leader of remnant of Finarfin's people when Finarfin returns to Tirion in this source?
    • Do we know that the figure who pronounces the Doom of Mandos is Mandos himself? Should we leave it ambiguous?
  • YT 1497
    • A lot of AA and GA material mixed up together, so might be necessary to add an inline ref sentence by sentence.
    • "First Battle" might not be named as such in either AA or GA.
  • YT 1498
    • The annal actually says they camped in Hithlum, not specifying Mithrim, though based on the details in YS 2, you would expect Hithlum here means near the shores of Lake Mithrim, unless they moved in that time. How should I handle it?
  • YT 1500
    • Perhaps we shouldn't imply that the creation of the Sun and Moon happens here, only their first rising?
    • Argon not mentioned in AA or GA.
      • Referenced Shibboleth.
    • Should we add the Hiding of Valinor to this entry? See HoMe X p. 133.
      • It's hard to see whether the events in AA YS 1500 are all before the end of that year or include things extending into the early years of the YS.
        • I think it recounts how it is in Annals of Aman enough.
        • And on that note, maybe the first rising of the Sun can be in only one of YT 1500 and YS 1 and not the other.
          • I think it recounts how it is in Annals of Aman enough.
          • Maybe the Moon can be removed from YS 1, but if Grey Annals mentions the Moon rising in YS 1...
      • And it's pretty redundant appearing in both YT 1500 and YS 1.
        • Do we know if his death occurred before or after the rise of the Sun? Must've been after the rise of the Moon.
    • Note a discrepancy that in the pre-Shibboleth versions, Fingolfin walks through the North unopposed, no Battle of the Lammoth.
  • FA 1
    • Argon's death not described in AA or the GA source.
      • Used Shibboleth.
    • See the discrepancy in YT 1500 that in pre-Shibboleth versions Fingolfin's host walks through the North unopposed, no Battle of the Lammoth.
      • Also, which versions included references to... what was it, that the Sun rose specifically when Fingolfin's host is walking through Mithrim? And that generally Fingolfin's host walked through Hithlum, which is a little surprising that they didn't run into Feanorians, and Feanorians only "heard rumor" of Fingolfin's arrival? In many versions a reader might assume that Fingolfin marched east around the northern border of Hithlum (unseen on any map), or more reachingly that he walked east around the southern border of Hithlum, Dor-lomin and Mithrim then north through the Pass of Sirion.
  • FA 2
    • Minor phrasing issue: Feanorians seem to be the active force in camping on the other side of the Lake.
  • FA 52
    • GA does not mention the Nulukkizdin.
      • Nulukkizdin is the name of the location, not the Petty-dwarves. Still awkward to say "they" though without having introduced the Petty-dwarves, or whoever exactly built Nargothrond (did Great Dwarves participate too?).
    • Why was Nulukkizdin written like [[Nulukkizdin�]]? It's a red dot. Nulukkizdin�. I can put it there with a wrong keyboard shortcut, but I wonder what the original editor meant to put there.
  • FA 60
    • Does GA say that Minas Tirith was built precisely this year? I'm not sure it does, and I'm not sure if anything does.
      • Done; but it reads awkwardly.
  • FA 65
    • Complicated, I think another source describes the Havens being built long before, I think descriptions of the First Battle describe walls around them, and so maybe only new walls were built in this time, or maybe it reflects a different version of the Havens' history.
      • Done.
  • FA 150
    • I believe source says Caranthir's "folk" meet the Dwarves, rather than Caranthir himself.
      • Reflected.
    • Some ambiguity in whether this was the first time Caranthir's folk climbed the mountains, or only the first time they met the Dwarves.
  • FA 155
    • Source doesn't mention the Lammoth by name.
    • Source doesn't mention Fingon; does another description of the events? Published Silmarillion, Later QS maybe?
      • Used published Silm, but maybe I missed something in Later QS that would be better.
  • FA 402
    • Review the Discrepancy note for this.
  • FA 420
    • Perhaps include Bel. 420 dates (from Grey Annals), but only §§130–1, and witha Discrepancy note suggesting maybe it'd actually take place c. Bel. 313, when the Marachians and Haladin enter Beleriand?
  • FA 455
    • Include the name "Fell Year"?
    • Include a possible Discrepancy note about Gundor's death. In a table somewhere (HoMe XI Ch. 14?) Gundor's death is 1 year after Hador's.
  • FA 459
    • Quote the line "well nigh a year" in §162 to explain this dating?
      • Done.
    • Note I "hacked" the {{GA|162}} template to avoid using a colon twice.
      • I should scour Wikipedia until I see how they use out-of-text descriptors of texts (like pointing to a particular point on a page, a §#, a genealogical table, or a Notes or Commentary section), if they ever do, and same with using quotes in a References section along with the reference. Or if Wikipedia doesn't, maybe Wookieepedia does.
  • FA 462
    • Could second sentence apply to things that happened prior to the Second Assault on Hithlum, that had already been repelled by Thingol, Maedhros and Dwarves before then?
      • Removed that line, not entirely sure where it came from. Replaced with description of Morgoth's goals, before the rest of the sentences.
  • FA 464 and FA 465
    • Pick whether to "prioritize" Turin's birth in FA 464 or FA 465. Include the other birthyear in Discrepancies.
      • Grey Annals went with FA 464 (after emendations?), so if FA 465 were chosen, would any other years change based on the ages he's described as being during each event across different versions?
      • See Commentary on §258 in Grey Annals, p. 137.
  • FA 467
    • Maybe it's misleading to place the events in Mandos and Beren and Luthien's release within this year.
      • Reflected.
  • FA 469
    • Minor wording issue: GA says "world" rather than "Middle-earth".
  • FA 472
    • What specific source says that Turgon was High King after Fingon?
    • Take "Turin sent to Doriath" from FA 473? Versions may differ.
      • Done.
  • FA 473
    • Move "Turin sent to Doriath" to FA 472? But if so, I think he arrives in Doriath in FA 473.
      • Done.
    • Gil-galad not mentioned as being with Cirdan in the source itself.
      • Added source and NB.
    • Might be incorrect to say the Haven of Sirion is built this year, I think there was at least a foothold before, maybe more. Almost certainly is true that the building of the seven ships at the behest of Turgon began here.
      • Reflected.
        • Wait, did I include something about the seven ships? No.
          • Also maybe put something about the previous ships, between the Bragollach and Nirnaeth? But not if there isn't a particular year in which that would have began.
        • Look to make sure if there isn't more information on the Mouths of Sirion existing as a settlement prior to YS 473. Maybe to do with the Elves of Narog exploring the Bay of Balar? Of Beleriand and Its Realms or the adjacent chapters?
    • Investigate this, from Amalcarin on Discord:

      • There are a note and a genealogy from the late 1960s stating that Gil-galad (son of Orodreth in this version) escaped and eventually came to the Mouths of Sirion. But the word “eventually” is IMO significant, and I suspect that he might find refuge in Doriath (being related to Thingol, among other things) and come to the Mouths of Sirion after the ruin of Doriath.
        This is of course a conception different from the one(s) where he found refuge in the Havens of Falas.

        (21 February 2025)
  • FA 487
    • My note says: "See various Discrepancies in GA for YS 487, compared to YS 486 in Narn and YS 488 in GA."
  • FA 488
    • Discrepancy note about the death of Orodreth's probably-dropped son in this year?
  • FA 489
    • Should there be a note saying that GA has a Man named Blodren rather than Mim the Dwarf?
      • Noted in an NB.
    • Doesn't Beleg die in summer? Does it take 3 to 6 months to get from the northern border of Dorthonion to Ivrin?
  • FA 490
    • Did Turin for sure become a captain of Nargothrond before this year was over?
      • Ambiguity reflected. Hopefully I didn't miss anything that shows he was a captain by the end of 490.
  • FA 494
    • Add Wandering material for this year? That it was Lorgan's pursuit of Nienor that pushed Morwen and Nienor to escape Dor-lomin?
  • FA 495
    • Note that in GA Tuor comes to Mouths of Sirion rather than Nevrast? Or source that part of the description with Tale of Tuor?
    • If there was a version of the story where Tuor reaches Gondolin in FA 496 (I'm not sure there was), include a note about it?
      • All versions where Tuor reached the Mouths of Sirion before going to Gondolin have him reach Gondolin in FA 496. I don't think there are any versions where he goes from Vinyamar to Gondolin and arrives in FA 496.
    • See Commentary on §277, p. 141, Grey Annals. Maybe primarily about choosing which death of Handir to prioritize? Or maybe double-checking the season of his death, the order of his death compared to the other events. And Gelmir and Arminas.
  • FA 495 and FA 496
    • I don't think the Narn says anything to contradict Wanderings of Hurin in Turin only arriving in Dor-lomin in 496. But what about the Children of Hurin novel, 2007?
    • Do the Narn or the 2007 Children of Hurin novel specify whether Finduilas was killed in 495 or 496?
  • FA 500
    • Note about alternate birth years for Elured and Elurin?
      • Only alternate I'm aware of is in the Beor table II (I think), Eldun (Elured?) in YS 492 and Elrun (Elurin?) in YS 495.
      • (Can't do that for everyone with an alternate birth year, why here?)
  • FA 501
    • Include a note about versions where Hurin is released in FA 501, rather than reaching Brethil then?
      • And might those other versions have precedence over the Wanderings version?
  • FA 502 to FA 507
    • A recurring issue is using dates from the Tale of Years schemes to date "canonical" events from Christopher's version of the Ruin of Doriath.
      • I think I've basically cleared this up, except in terms of the alternate versions which could be detailed in Discrepancies.
        • Double-check the published Silmarillion, in Talk:Thingol Ar-Zigûr says it says the Dwarves labored almost a year in their task of making the Nauglamír. That might throw a wrench into the way I apply Tale of Years dates to Christopher and GKK's narrative.
  • FA 502
    • Should I use the Wanderings (earlier?) source for Tuor and Idril's wedding?
      • Wanderings timeline and Scheme D are the same for the year of the wedding.
  • FA 503
    • Add genealogical tables of the Edain to Earendil and Elwing's births? Just to show consistency.
    • Lots of issues.
      • Basically got through them.
  • FA 506 to FA 507
    • Fuse into one entry? "FA 506-7"?
      • I've at least made a note about it.
  • FA 510
    • GA is good for the Fall of Gondolin happen, but maybe use the chapter in the published Silmarillion as a source for the specific deaths.
      • Done.
    • Not sure which source to use to establish Gil-galad as the successor of Turgon.
      • Published Silm chapter for Gondolin, but applied to 511.
  • FA 534
    • Inexact phrasing.
  • FA 538
    • Like FA 510, maybe used the published Silmarillion chapter as a source for the deaths of the Feanorians, actions of Maedhros and Maglor, Elwing's transformation into a bird and so on.
      • Just a matter if you want to double ref tags for Amrod and Amras.
      • Also, a Discrepancy note about version where Amrod dies at Losgar?
  • FA 540
    • I feel like it deserves a note that it's from an earlier scheme of the Tale of Years than all the others. It doesn't really fit since the chronology morphed, and it's easy to imagine Tolkien would've picked a different year if he had made an evolution of this annal in the later schemes.
      • Maybe don't say it would have moved had Tolkien mentioned it in the later schemes, but leave the info that would make a reader put that together themselves.
  • FA 542
    • Tale of Years doesn't specify the "rallying" happening this year specifically.
      • I checked the published Silm too. I'm uncomfortable with the language of Earendil and Elwing themselves being the ones who do the rallying.
• Things I've deleted despite not knowing for sure that it isn't backed up in the text somewhere:
  • 1115: Reference to (Nandor?) later being called "Lindar" removed, though technically but misleadingly true, except that the Teleri or Nelyar might've been called Lindar even starting from Cuivienen.
  • 1128: Previously said that Elwe kept a friendship with Finwe and the Noldor, I replaced it to just with Elwe in the lands of the Noldor.
  • 1152: Removed implication that Thingol's hair only turned silver after his trance with Melian.
  • 1449: "having invented the substance Silima"
  • 1450: "For the next 20 years" replaced with "For the next 40 years"

Timeline/Second Age

• With a pre-1992 edition of Unfinished Tales...
  • Apply page numbers to the "obscure" dates in "The Mariner's Wife": 730, 733, 735, 739, 824, 843, 850, 861, 880.
  • Apply page numbers to the refs from The Line of Elros, instead of Roman numerals for the entries as I have now.
• Add a note about the discrepancy with Inziladun, Note 12 of The Line of Elros.
• Replace generic Aldarion and Erendis citations with page numbers from pre-1992 editions or Cite DTP, since these year specifications can be hard to find, being in text rather than clear Arabic numerals.
  • Cite DTP links don't work with the DTP website, although a reader probably could find the passage if they already know how DTP citations work.
  • See the to-do above about using a pre-1992 edition.
• Separate the generic The Line of Elros citations by the number of the King or Ruling Queen the paragraph is about? (Pro: Would be especially helpful for cases like Herucalmo dates and Gimilkhad dates.)
  • Done.
• Deal with the c. 300 dating of Celebrian's birth?
• Specific issues by year:
  • SA 40
    • I deleted it but earlier this entry specified Firebeards and Broadbeams migrating to Khazad-dum. I think Galadriel and Celeborn in UT (or was it a Letter?) describes one of the two cities (not specifying clans) migrating to Khazad-dum more than the other, probably Belegost; might be worth including?
      • Galadriel and Celeborn notes that Khazad-dum would have more Belegost Dwarves than Nogrod ones, but that's because they would've left the Blues earlier than the Nogrod ones, so I don't think that tells us anything about whether one or more cities or clans are migrating east at this point.
  • SA 300
    • Move the note within the entry to a ref note? (Or "Discrepancies" section.)
  • SA 500
    • Does anything associate Sauron with the East specifically in this time c.SA 500?
  • SA 730 and SA 733
    • Prepend a "c." to these dates? Add a ref note about their inexactness?
  • SA 861 and SA 863
    • Could this be a mismatch? The gap between the years? Don't remember what I questioned about this.
  • SA 869
    • Is the idea of a Shadow falling for the first time explicit enough to include?
  • SA 2221 and SA 2251
    • Maybe all the events in both of these years should go in SA 2221? Or add a note to SA 2251 about the possibility of that. See Note 10 of The Line of Elros in UT.
  • SA 2360
    • See Note 12 in Line of Elros, what Christopher says is impossible, make a note of it as a ref or in a "Discrepancies" section.
  • SA 2960
    • Were the Elvish languages banned this year? Or just during the lifetime or reign of Gimilzor?
• Things to do in these years' own articles:
  • SA 600
    • Specify spring arrival in Mithlond
  • SA 601
    • Specify autumn return in Numenor

Timeline/Third Age

• Dxwkx has done a lot of work here, maybe completed already.

Timeline/Fourth Age

• Seem perfect.
  • Except maybe Fo.A. 220 could use a note about how The New Shadow was originally set earlier, and that timeline placement was the case for the actual writing we see in HoMe XII.

Timeline/Years of the Trees

• Once the Years of the Trees section of the First Age Timeline has been perfected, copy-paste it over the years 1050 onwards in this article; the Before the First Age section (YT 1 and YT 1000) are good, except if we want YT 1000 to be re-labled YT 1000-1050 like in the text.
  • When I do this, should I also copy the "Discrepancies" section there too?
• Include converted solar years based on 1 VY = 144 solar years? See General to-do list.

Timeline/Days before days

• Include converted solar years based on 1 VY = 144 solar years? See General to-do list.
• Also, it should be made clear (based on Annals of Aman) that VY 1 is distinguished by being the year that the Valar descended into Arda, not the year the First War began, as many might interpret it as written (it's how I interpreted it before reading HoMe).
  • The First War could have, and probably did, begin after VY 1, especially if other texts apply to Annals of Aman and Melkor left Arda later to return (as like a mountain covered in ice and crowned with flame) and that is what began the First War.
    • Another possibility though is that the First War does include the first dispute between the Valar and Melkor, in which Melkor retreated out of Arda, even though that event seems "bloodless". And the First War merely resumes when Melkor descends again as an icy fire-crowned mountain. But I think the First War beginning later (who knows, VY 500, VY 1000) is more likely, and how I've written it now I think satisfies all the ambiguity.
  • This will change how the period from VY 1 to VY 1500 is divided up, currently VY 1 to VY 1499 and VY 1500. Could become VY 1 and VY 2 to VY 1499 and VY 1500, or VY 1 and VY 1 to VY 1499 and VY 1500, or VY 1 and VY 1 to VY 1500 and VY 1500, or just VY 1 and VY 1500.
    • Done.

More experimental ideas

• Could we replace "Fo.A." notation with "4A" like Tolkien uses in NoMe?
  • Even though it was probably just a shorthand and not what he would've put into text meant for publishing? Is "Fo.A." something Tolkien used? ("4.A." could also be worth considering.)
• Likewise, replace "Y.S." with "Bel."?
  • It would be more agnostic as to the cosmology, even if the article overall is not.
    • If not, a "Discrepancy" note about the Round World cosmology might be a good place to mention the "Bel." notation replacing "Y.S.".
• Also consider finding a place to describe Days of Bliss (DB), Awakening Years (AY).
  • And Dark Years as another name for the Second Age, might be analogous to Fading Years for the Third Age, the latter being an alternate name on the Timeline portal, though I'm not sure I've seen it in text. (And I don't know if I can find "Dark Years" as a proper name, Appendix B just has "in the dark years".) Never seen Twilight Age for Third Age either. Years of the Holy Light was used as an alternate name for the Years of the Trees, and (nine) Years of Darkness for the Years of the Trees between the deaths of the Trees and Y.S. 1, both in Later Annals of Valinor.
    • Dark Years can be sourced to S AK.014Digital Tolkien Project Citation SystemsJ.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, "Akallabêth", Paragraph 14thirteenth or fourteenth paragraph. Don't know if then it refers to the whole Second Age. There's also the Black Years in S RP.030Digital Tolkien Project Citation SystemsJ.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, "Of the Rings of Power", Paragraph 30and fifteenth paragraph.
    • Fading Years is present uncapitalized in Appendix B, analogous to dark years. And present capitalized in 43rd paragraph of Rings of Power, "And so indeed... again".
      • Hm, maybe they should modify the Cite DTP template to include the first three and last one words of the paragraphs, instead of clicking the link to find out.
        • I think they're planning this, hence the commas at the end.
    • Phrase "First Ages of the World" would be interesting to include as a curiosity. It was in one of the Annals of Valinor, and went from creation to VY 3000, ending with the rising of the Sun. But that's OVOTL, and was not the First Age as a term that came into conception after the Third and Second were.
  • Also Saruman's Middle Days (presumably Second and Third Ages?) and Younger Days (presumably Later Ages, Fourth through Seventh).
• Include entire stretches of timelines from earlier versions of the Annals and Tale of Years as separate timelines below the "Discrepancies" section of Timeline/First Age.
• Even going back to the versions where Maeglin didn't arrive in Gondolin until YS 471, or where Feanor's mother was Indis and she died crossing the Misty Mountains. But this would be most useful in showing the stretch of time from Beor's birth to around the Sudden Flame in the version when Beor arrived in Beleriand in YS 400.
  • Could get out of hand; but this would definitely go no further back than the earliest Annals of Aman, because the Annals of Valinor and Annals of Beleriand were all pre-LR, and therefore before the concept of a First Age existed. If anyone ever wanted to summarize those versions, they could probably be separate articles rather than an OVOTL section here.
    • (And I think OVOTL is different than my "Discrepancies" idea, because the timeline by its nature encompasses multiple versions already. I like the term "Discrepancy" because Christopher Tolkien used it in Note 15 of The Line of Elros.)
• Make a timeline for the Lost Tales stories (or the latest versions of them combined), at least in its own sandbox.
  • This would not be listed by years, just one major event after another, to summarize the differences in chronology from later versions, like Melko being both Chained and Unchained before the Elves Awoke or were Found.
  • A few entries could be dated, in things like "700 years after previous entry", "7 years after previous", or "700 years later", "7 years later", there are a few times where events are dated relative to previous ones.

Timeline/Seventh Age or Timeline/Anno domini (fictional)

• Ideas for a Timeline/Seventh Age article; or, I might prefer, a Timeline/Anno domini (fictional) article. Copy-paste what I wrote in Discord into here.

  • I'm hesitant to do that, maybe primarily because *I* would enjoy it too much and so I'd feel like I was indulging myself. On top of that, if we think of the metafictional aspect of *The Lord of the Rings* as a part of the legendarium itself, the idea that J. R. R. Tolkien is also a character who translated the Red Book into English, and there might be three-foot-tall Hobbits somewhere in his world, then including NCP dates would probably be incorporating an incompatible alternate history into what should be reserved for whatever years could hypothetically be placed into the metafictional Seventh Age of *The Lord of the Rings*. (I say "hypothetically" since maybe we don't know that "Tolkien the translator" was for sure born in 1892 and so on.) I'm not sure that Tolkien, real or metafictional, can exist in the NCP timeline (of which there are multiple versions), since there are mentions of a John Arthurson, writer of the Quenta Eldalien. And it's all the more complicated because the frame narrative of NCP suggests that maybe the whole story is in-universe fictional, so even if Tolkien can't exist in the timeline within the Notion Club Papers, maybe he can exist within the frame timeline where the Notion Club Papers are discovered in 2012, and *he* wrote them.
    Of course Dour is right, we could just note the reasoning. But I'd wonder if we couldn't just make a NCP timeline that's a section of an article on The Notion Club Papers, or its world. Or, if we did make a Timeline/Seventh Age article, if it should also include years from other works besides NCP, being "canon- continuity-agnostic" despite using the "Seventh Age" name that comes from a later-legendarium writing.
    
    Oh, that's another thing, might 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, or 4.A., 5.A., 6.A., 7.A., be preferable to Fo.A., Fi.A., Si.A., Se.A.? Tolkien uses 4A in NoMe, and while granted that might just be a shorthand that he wouldn't have put in published writing, at least he wrote it? Did Tolkien ever use the "Fo.A." abbreviation, or is that a fan-creation?
    
    As for the Timeline/Seventh Age idea, if people feel that passionate about it I wouldn't try too hard to stop it. But even if we note our reasoning, casual readers won't always read that part, and so on average it could spread an idea that NCP is a core part of the legendarium, something that "always happens" in the far future of Lord of the Rings. When even the Second Age events of that story (Drowning of Anadune) are very divergent from previous and later versions. (Even if some of those can be chalked up to corrupted Mannish memory of the events.) And including a timeline within an NCP article would document the same information, but less likely give a wrong impression.
    This also has me thinking about a Father Christmas Letters timeline.
    
    Ah, I was overlooking that you're talking about articles for each year rather than a Timeline/Seventh Age article. Yeah, that doesn't bother me too much. Something like "Seventh Age 1938", "Alwin Arundel Lowdham born." Then a note in italics and parentheses or a superscripted "[Note]" reference?
    
    I won't stop you. (...Or, I wouldn't even if I could!) And I understand the pull. But I would also see a case for "1938 (fictional)" rather than "Seventh Age 1938" so that we could use them for Tolkien works other than NCP. *Lost Road* might have some particular years associated with it, I'd have to look it up again. Then there's Father Christmas Letters, which people might object to mixing in with legendarium stuff more strongly than they would NCP stuff, but I would not. It's kind of a "if you consider Pluto a planet, don't you also have to include 1000 slightly smaller dwarf planets" thing.
    
    Another thing to think about, in Letter 211, just a year or two before Tolkien wrote that 1960 was Seventh Age 1960, he thought that we were nearing the end of the Fifth Age, or nearing the end of the Sixth Age or early in the Seventh. So there's not much to suggest that he thought of the Seventh Age as beginning with Jesus's birth when he wrote NCP, and there's no indication that he picked NCP back up after he had come up with that idea in 1960. So it still makes me squeamish to prioritize NCP information over other works, like the Seventh Age is the "domain" of NCP, even if NCP is the only directly legendarium related work to have any specific AD years.
    But if others want to follow the proposals I was arguing against, they can go on ahead, that should be all I have left to say.

    (7 February 2025)
    I don't consider myself some sort of shot-caller after less than two months of editing.
• If Timeline/Anno domini (fictional) instead of Timeline/Seventh Age, could include the Battle of Maldon, specifically the fictionalized version in Homecoming. Stuff like that. It wouldn't all be NCP or Father Christmas.
• This could potentially include pre-AD, pre-7A years, like Father Christmas's birthyear.

Timeline/Real-world article?

• Currently the only way I'm aware of to read real-world events year by year is by reading Category: Years (real-world).
  • How does the legacy box on the Main Page work? Where is it pulling its dates from?

Old project description from Userpage

My current project is getting Timeline/First Age and Timeline/Second Age fully cited, to the standards that Timeline/Days before days and Timeline/Fourth Age have reached (thanks to the work of JR Snow and Mith, it looks like). I'm verifying the accuracy of what's already been written as I go through it, and also adding notes to point out discrepancies between year entries, since the First Age timeline in particular is composed of multiple layers of writings the only partially overwrite the previous ones.

At any point I might abandon the project, so I think I'll eventually write my intentions here in the off chance someone wants to pick up where I left off and finds my User page.

I've enjoyed reading the Timeline pages in the past, but it was bothersome having no clue what book each statement came from, and that made it hard to shake the paranoia that a given interesting statement could just be fanon that slipped through. And as I started reading through The History of Middle-earth, I felt misled by how the Tolkien Gateway Timeline articles give the impression of each entry being part of a single cohesive whole. I think it would be helpful to convey how the timeline is composed of a few big chunks, and how the later chunks affect the earlier ones. At first I was thinking the citations listed under the References section could do that alone, but maybe on top of that there could be a brief description of these various stages.

I'm also thinking of taking the longer notes about contradictions out of the Notes section and creating a new section titled "Discrepancies", and instead of using note tags to link to them, I could use a NB tag to link to a subheading in the Discrepancies section, sort of like how "NB" is used in the Gil-galad page to link to the discussion about his parentage.

I might write a more specific to-do list for this project later.

(29 January 2025)