Talk:Maedhros

message: Minor correction: Maedhros' red hair (probably a dark red-brown, actually) comes to him through his mother, but there is no mention of Nerdanel actually having red hair, so it is probably more accurate to say that it comes from his grandfather, Mahtan (who did have red hair). Seeing as there is actual discussion of hair color in Peoples of Middle-earth, and the red is distinctive enough to bear mentioning, it is reasonable (although I am aware of the logical fallacy) to suppose that Nerdanel's hair was not red. Aranel 22:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not sure, but I think citations are not used in the summary paragraph. Everything mentioned in the summary paragraph should be repeated later in one of the sections, and referenced at that point. I think! Hence my requests for citations at later points. Still a nice article, but let's get these citations in there! Carcharoth 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found all the citations in the Trivia section. What I'm wondering is whether the best way to approach this is to say that everything is from The Silmarillion (1977) unless otherwise stated, and to reference the bits mentioned in HoME and other writings. That should, IMO, be the way to tackle articles like this. Somehow intertwine the story biography with the story of the order and sequence in which Tolkien wrote various bits about Maedhros. This involves massive trawling through HoME, but would look nice at the end of it all. Carcharoth 10:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations not used in summary paragraph? 

message: I'm not sure, but some of the references seem to have been mixed up in the wrong order. There is a references (currently number 7) that links from the account of the wounding of several of the sons of Feanor at the Hill of Himring, to the boat-burning episode many centuries earlier in Losgar. Not quite sure what is going on there. Carcharoth 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The system being used automatically updates the numbering / linking of the references and that reference has been associated with the same text since it was added. The point appears to be to explain why six of Feanor's sons were wounded... because the 7th was already dead at that point. It does seem a bit roundabout though. --CBDunkerson 13:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto to what CBD said, except the point was to explain why there were only six, and not seven.  If anyone has a better way of making the citation point clear, please do! —Mirlen 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just say in the reference that the quote is intended to illustrate why there are only six sons wounded. That would make it a bit clearer. I vaguely suspected it might be this, but it really wasn't clear what was going on. Carcharoth 20:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay.  Thanks for the suggestion.   I have made a correction that'll hopefully make the point clear here.  Oh, and feel free to fix it. —Mirlen 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong reference? 

message: Some of the references seem a bit repetitive, especially 2, 3, 4, and 13. Is there not a way to do Ibid, or whatever that phrase is? Carcharoth 21:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the HoME books right now, but I was hoping that anyone who had the HoME books would be able to specify the references by adding the page numbers, and what "chapter" the information referenced was stated.  Sorry, I should've added a comment about that in the article. —Mirlen 22:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So references #2, 3, 5, and #14 need page numbers.  If the page numbers between two of these are the same, then we would combine the references. —Mirlen 23:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitive references 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:Bullet-pointed text is bad prose.  If the things listed under trivia are significant they should be mentioned in the main text, and if they're not they shouldn't be mentioned at all.
 Worldtraveller 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: Have a look at User:Carcharoth#Tolkien_infoboxes. Do people think that looks better? Carcharoth 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox part 2 

message: The version of the oath in the footnotes is from Morgoth's Ring. See here for its textual history. Uthanc 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The oath reference is wrong.

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of July 15, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Yes. Fix the broken first sentence, and do something about the second, one-sentence paragraph in Appearances. Expand it by explaining why, or merge it with an existing paragraph.
:2. Factually accurate?: Current citations sufficient.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.
:5. Article stability? Yes. Editing is sparse.
:6. Images?: All in order.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— Carson 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All set! Edited intro and paragraph in appearances. Judgesurreal777 05:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: GA nomination passed as minor concerns have been addressed. Bypassing the 2-day minimum hold as I don't foresee any changes or concerns. Congratulations! Carson 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed

message: Substituted at 22:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maedhros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927161901/http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=16331 to http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=16331
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not sure I quite see why Maedhros would need an Old English name -- I know Tolkien loved the language, but since the only people in Middle-earth who have OE names are the Rohirrim, perhaps this needs a word of explanation in the article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the Finwëans have Old English names given in the The Shaping of Middle-Earth. No, I can't remember why (and don't have my HoME with me). Double sharp (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Old English?

message: Looking back at this now, it's not obvious that the topic is notable. Fimi, a fine scholar, and Kinniburgh both see Maedhros as one example among several of Celtic influence, but that's for another article. Flieger basically mentions him in passing when discussing the Silmarils, contributing to the notability of that article; and the excellent artist Jenny Dolfen happens to like Maedhros, good for her. Apart from that we have, cough, a lengthy primary account. I see that earlier threads were still at the stage of discussing what Wikipedia's audience was, i.e. were we trying to tell the world about Tolkien's writings and characters, or did we possibly need something deeper (hint: multiple, reliable, independent sources). The obvious question is why would scholars write about Elves. Answer, from the point of view of folklore, or sociology, or mythopoeia, or the history of literature, or tracing themes and influences ... what they don't do much of is what fans expect, documenting characters, places, objects, and weapons in minute detail. I suspect this article is mainly a hangover from an earlier age. Probably time to redirect, really. I'll see about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability not established