Talk:Middle-earth weapons and armour/Archive 2

Why the emphasis on Jackson movies?

A list of Middle-earth weapons shouldn't include movie-only weapons. These should be mentioned in the movie articles, and a link to there provided from here, but there is no need to raise these movie-only weapons to the same status as weapons found in the books. The whole structure of the Tolkien articles should be centred around the books and their author, with the film articles being subsidiary to that. Carcharoth 01:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. I basically just left the "movie" section of this list as I found it, but I can definitely see a strong argument for removing it completely. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Otherwise I'll just go for it (making sure we retain any useful information in relevant articles). --Alataristarion 01:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just one note - if you remove text from this article, and reinsert it into other articles, please make clear in the edit summaries where the text is being moved to and where it came from, and that you personally did not write it (unless you did). This is important to maintain attribution under the GFDL (the license by which people release their contributions to Wikipedia). If you are not sure, please ask. See also WP:SPLIT for the problems with splitting up text. Carcharoth 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sgt. Gothmog (race unspecified in book), Lurtz, and any other original Orcs should be removed from List of Middle-earth Orcs then. I'll put them in List of original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. General information about movie weapons and armor details can be covered elsewhere - like Uruk-hai crossbows (basically, there's a lot more plate armor in the Jackson films while Tolkien mostly writes about scale and chain mail, since Middle-earth probably isn't as medieval as Jackson or rather John Howe depicted it). Where to put Hadhafang and lhang? Uthanc 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The information on Hadhafang and lhang won't be lost as it will be included in the individual articles at least. --Alataristarion 09:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem with double redirects and copy-paste instead of move

This article was recently copy-pasted from Weapons of Middle-earth and a redirect placed there. See here. The article should have been moved, not copy-pasted. Could editing please stop until this has been repaired? (I'll try and do it tomorrow). Also, the redirect was put in place without fixing the double redirects. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Weapons_of_Middle-earth to see all the double redirects that haven't been fixed. Please read WP:MOVE for details. Please ask if you have any questions. Carcharoth 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this. Uthanc 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this, I created the new name too quickly without reading the stuff I should have first. I'll try to fix the double redirects that came up as a result. Thanks for catching this and letting me know. --Alataristarion 08:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. It can be repaired fairly easily. Depending on the amount of editing that has taken place (I see that Alataristarion did some formatting stuff and a small sentence, but Uthanc did a fairly extensive rewrite), would either of you two object to having this article deleted (you'll have to both sign a {{db-author}} speedy deletion template) so that we can effectively go back to the last version at Weapons of Middle-earth before it was turned into a redirect, and then move it (and the page history) here, then you two can re-add your edits and we will have effectively merged the edit history at both articles. If you two agree to this, I propose the following steps:

• (DONE) Move this talk page to a subpage of Talk:Weapons of Middle-earth (it will effectively be an archive), for example Talk:Weapons of Middle-earth/Archive 2 Talk:List of Middle-earth weapons (it will effectively be an archive), for example Talk:List of Middle-earth weapons/Archive 2.
• (DONE) add the db-author speedy deletion template to List of Middle-earth weapons.
• (DONE) Wait for the article and talk page (which will now be a redirect) to be deleted.
• (DONE) Revert Weapons of Middle-earth to version before redirect and move to the list title.
• (DONE) Archive the old discussion.
• (MOVED TO NEW TALK PAGE) Restart discussion on the talk page.
• (MOVED TO NEW TALK PAGE) Re-do the missing edits.

Does this sound OK? Carcharoth 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. I've saved the last edited version to my hard drive. How do we go about it? Like this> (using <nowiki>): Uthanc 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

{{db-meta|This page was mistakenly created, no one other than its original authors, [[User:Alataristarion]] and [[User:Uthanc]] have made substantial edits, and they request its deletion or have blanked the page. (<small>[[WP:CSD#G7|CSD G7]]</small>).|self=yes}}

That sounds fine. I'll move the talk page now, and archive the current talk page at that location. I think Alataristarion will be fine with this, and if you make clear that this is just a deletion to fix page history, it should be fine (point any queries towards this discussion). Could you go ahead with the db request? Thanks. Carcharoth 23:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming Anglachel and Narsil articles

I believe Gurthang is more significant than Anglachel, and possibly Andúril more than Narsil, but the swords' articles are named after their first iterations. What to use? Is there any policy or consensus on this? Uthanc 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to include both names in the list, since 1) in many respects they function as two different weapons in terms of history, time of use, etc and, more importantly, 2) it makes looking up a specific weapon in the list easier if both names are listed. However, for the individual articles themselves, I just created Anglachel since it was first in alphabetical order, and Narsil already existed. I could definitely see an argument for switching these around though, since you're right, Gurthang and Andúril are probably the more significant names. --Alataristarion 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with the proviso that this brings up all sorts of spoiler issues. But hey, this is not really crucial plot point, so it shouldn't be a problem. Carcharoth 13:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of strange archive history

This archive page was created by a move and then edited after the move. This is because of various contortions while fixing a cut and paste move. More explanatory links will be added here later if needed. Carcharoth 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Final tidy up after the move

Copied out of /Archive 2:

• (DONE) Restart discussion on the talk page.
• (DONE) Re-do the missing edits.

Can the three missing edits be added back soon, before anyone else starts editing. Thanks. Carcharoth 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did my update, and I think the other two are done as well. --Alataristarion 06:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted movie stuff

For reference: Talk:List of Middle-earth weapons/Deleted film stuff Uthanc 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Improving List Quality

It would be nice to leave this list at at least "A" quality now that standardization/citation have taken place. I'm currently working on finding citations for the "General Weapons" section, which are of course needed. What else would need to be done? --Alataristarion 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thought. Where you reference translations to 'Lost Road', do you mean The Etymologies section of that work? If so, the footnotes should make that clearer. Carcharoth 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'grond' = 'club' association is clear from Etymologies, but 'bel-thron-ding' would probably mean something like 'strong-rigid-bowstring'. On 'Herugrim', I'd generally translate the 'grim' element as... 'grim', the meaning really hasn't changed. For the speculative items would it make sense to clarify which elements are known vs guessed? For instance, in Ringil the 'ring' element in the name is clearly stated to mean 'cold' in both Etymologies and Silm... the '-il' part is then generally translated as 'glint' or 'star'. For Anguirel the 'ang = iron' portion is attested in Silm, 'el = star' is probably a safe guess, but the 'uir' element appears only as a root meaning 'eternity', the 'burning' meaning is a speculative form. Finally, Dagmor doesn't have even a partial attested translation, but 'mor = darkness' is a common form... 'dag = slayer' is a reasonable but unattested extrapolation. --CBD 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When supplying translations for this list, I sought to only use meanings that were attested somewhere so as to avoid Original Research. I also didn't want to get into too much detail on the etymology of names since, although I'm super interested in it and some other people obviously are, it seems a bit too close to fancruft for me. If other people disagree though, I'd definitely be ok with it... --Alataristarion 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What would you think of using {{ME-lang}} to define the word elements? As in, {{subst:ME-lang|lang=s|ring|cold|il|glint/star?}} = (S. 'ring'=cold, 'il'=glint/star?). Then the whole word could be given a reference link where attested or separate links could be given for each element ('ring=cold' to Silm and 'il=glint' to the website you cited or Etymologies). Also, on the two Rohan weapons it might make sense to list 'Rohirric' as the language... while obviously Tolkien portrayed that language with Old English in the books he did make minor variations to the forms. For instance, in true Old English 'grim' would usually be spelled 'grimm'. On the issue of 'fancruft'... I think it makes sense to cite the meanings of the names and if we do then specificity allows us to be clear about which elements were stated by Tolkien and which were interpreted (and by whom). --CBD 12:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Header text query

At the risk of rubbishing someone else's work, what is the point of the discourse in the header talking about how the weapons can be classified? Just jump right in! I will remove the text "Weapons of Middle-Earth...Hadhafang are excluded." from the text and place it below in case it needs to be reused.

Weapons of Middle-earth may be classified in a variety of ways:

• By time of construction
• By time of recorded use:

In Tolkien's writings, named weapons were constructed and recorded to be used at vastly different points throughout the History of Arda. For example, the sword Anglachel was forged and used during the First Age, during which it was reforged and finally broken. However, some weapons were constructed and were recorded to be used in different Ages. For example, the short sword Sting was forged in the First Age but was only recorded to be used in the Third.

• By race of creator:

In Tolkien's writings, various weapons were constructed by Elves, Men, Dwarves or Orcs.

• By genericity:

Weapons were used by nearly all of the races in the legendarium. However, certain weapons have specific names and, often, an important lineage. Weapons may be organized according to their status in this regard, separating generic weapon types from specific, named weapons.

Weapons are listed below according to genericity. Non-canonical items such as the sword Hadhafang are excluded.

Hope I didn't step on too many toes here! Editus Reloaded 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

original research from Hadhafang

....The similarity to the German word "Gassenhauer" (i.e. "gap-cleaver", a two-handed sword or zweihänder to cleave gaps into the enemy throng) is striking and one may thus assume that Tolkien intended this term to denote a class of two-handed Elven swords, rather than a specific sword that never made it into his legendarium (which seems to be the basis for using the word for the non-canonical sword of Arwen in the Peter Jackson movie trilogy). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.6.184.245 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Inconsistency

Just a small issue: the description of Grond mentions nine wounds, but the Morgoth article describes it differently. I'm not sure how to solve this issue, as I don't have the sources at hand... Can somebody else solve this? I already put a comment there, without response. Hopefully this it is not too much spamming... :)

Dirk Stegemann 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - from the book I count seven wound, plus one to the foot = 8, plus one from the eagle. I think that is the answer.87.102.81.184 19:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

It would be nice to include a notice at the topic that this article contains major spoilers, especially for people that haven't read The Children of Hurin. A friend of mine stumbled onto the page and had a major plot point spoiled for him. --JBladen 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Angrist

Firstly the page refs don't seem to match between editions - oh dear.

Secondly the article says " It was so sharp and powerful that it could not be carried in a sheath" yet all I can find is in the original "the blade hung sheathless by his side"

Isn't that going one step too far in interpretation, or not?

Also the 'blade broke/snapped and a shard struck morgoth' (from the silmarillion - approx) - whereas the article says the 'tip of the knife broke'

Does anyone agree that this part is not sufficiently accurate at present?87.102.81.184 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made an edit to that part - but as I'm new to this I'd appreciate it if it was a worthwhile thing to do, or did it seem pedantic?87.102.81.184 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

edits to list

I made some minor edits to the list, removing some specualtion, and repeated or irrelevant info. Some minor text changes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Middle-earth_weapons&diff=155711901&oldid=15569045987.102.20.77 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also requested citations for a few things (that may possibly be not true)

Also removed this "The name contains the elements nar "fire" and thil "white light", referring to the Sun and Moon." which is speculation (?) wrong (?) since the sun is 'anar' etc moon is 'isil' (similar but not same)87.102.20.77 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is helpful stuff. I had a look at the stuff you removed. In my opinion you went a little bit too far, as some of the stuff could have been rewritten, rather than removed, but that can be sorted out later. Would you consider registering an account, as that would make things easier for future discussions? It also makes it easier to review your own contributions and keep track of things on a watchlist. A lot of stuff does need citing, though the main problem is how to handle page numbers. I think we should go for a system of using a combination of book name, chapter name, and page numbers. Carcharoth 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned with the slight over interpretation of some of the text - I notice that in many articles 'mormegil' has become a "black, magical, sword with a will of it's own" - it is black, and does speak once, but the rest is interpretation and best left for forums etc if these pages are to be encylopaedic.

As for the page numbers it would be good if the {{ME-ref}} template could be changed to take chapters - I've absolutely no idea how to do this. (I made extra suggestions about sub-books etc on the main talk page but that would be icing on the cake and maybe unneccessary.)87.102.5.137 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Caudimordax

The above may or may not be suitable for inclusion here - I'll leave it up to someone else to decide. Personally I would.87.102.5.137 12:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I merged it to Farmer Giles of Ham. Not sure what to do with Chrysophylax Dives. I think I'll merge that as well, for now. Carcharoth 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

last section "weapons"

added quite a few requests for references - got fed up and left most in commented form - so you need to be editing to see them.

Also changed the section to include 'etymology' not sure if that was right..87.102.114.215 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The unreferenced vocabulary lists need to be referenced. The wrong approach would be to reference each word separately (it would get to be hard to read very quickly). But we need some indication where each of these words is coming from. Elphion (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

External refs

Both references are to Joe Piela's essay, on two different commercial sites. Both feel like spam. The essay itself doesn't really provide very authoritative information, and the images go well beyond the evidence of the text. Is there any reason to keep these?  Elphion (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I've removed them. Elphion (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OR in Etymologies

I've removed the dubious etymologies as OR. The removed text is below. At best this information belongs in footnotes, and in much more readable format. The sources in all cases are not helpful, especially in determining how far the OR extends. And references to entries in the Etymologies should include the relevant entry name, not just the page number.

Removed etymology of Anlachel:

Iron of the Flaming Star (speculation<ref>Speculation based on The Lost Road and Other Writings.</ref>)

Removed etymology of Anguirel:

Iron of the Burning Star (speculation<ref>Or, alternatively, Iron of the Stone Star. Speculation based on The Lost Road and Other Writings.</ref>) (Sindarin), or: Iron of the Living Star — ang (iron) + cuir (living) + el (star); compare Angrist, ang (iron) + crist (cleaver, sword) where c > g > ø.<ref>J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien editor, History of Middle-earth, Vol. V, (1987), pp. 348 , 366, 355, 266.</ref>

Removed etymology of Dagmor:

Slayer of Darkness (speculation<ref>Yahoo! Groups<!-- Bot generated title --></ref>)

Removed etymology of Ringil:

Cold Star (speculation<ref>Tolkien Dictionary</ref>)

Elphion (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymologies from Ruth Noel

(Ruth S. Noel, The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-earth)

Ruth Noel's book was written early, before details of Tolkien's languages came out in other sources. Many of her conclusions are considered shaky. It's not clear we should include these in the text of the article, but they may be worth a footnote.

• Anlachel: ang "iron" + lhach "leaping fire" + el "star" — "Iron Star-flame"
• Anguirel: ang "iron" + guin "live" + el "star" — "Living Star-iron"
• Ringil: ring "cold" + el "star" — "Cold Star"

ang "iron", lhach "leaping flame", êl "star", and ring "cold" are all attested in the index of The Silmarillion, which even associates lhach with Anglachel ("probably" says the compiler, presumably CRRT) and ring with Ringil. The second element of Ringil I suspect is gil "spark, star", not êl. Noel's association of *guir or *uir with guinar (cuinar) is reasonable but speculative. More evidence would help. But even if she has identified the elements correctly, the translations are not authoritative. And that's the point: we're speculating.

Elphion (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In-universe style

I've restored the in-universe template at the top of the page. Being a list does not exempt a page from WP:WAF; this template is already on a few similar lists, such as List of Star Wars substances and List of Forgotten Realms characters. If adding real-world relevance would make the article too verbose, it can be split up into List of Middle-earth weapons and List of Middle-earth armor. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorically disagree. Can you suggest how you would like see these entries worded in an "out-of-universe way" that would not double the size of the list? Just appending "Tolkien describes this as ..." at the beginning of each entry would be pretty silly. The "relevance to the real world" lies in these items being of interest in the books. This list gets the necessary information across concisely and to the point. Adding what you seem to be suggesting serves no purpose, and would constitute sheer dead-weight. Also, are you aware that the link to "List Class" in the template leads to a redirected page; please check out the conventions used by the Middle-earth Project. Elphion (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply appending "Tolkien describes this as ..." would indeed be silly, and doesn't sufficiently describe real-world influence anyways. A good example would be the Narsil article, which describes the sword's historical influences and the director's choices for the films. We don't need to describe the real-world significance of Narsil again here, because the list already links to the article that does. Doubling the size of the list won't be a problem; we can split it up as it expands. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Several points:

• I repeat: this is a list. One of the important properties of a list is that it brings things together. To be successful a list should be comprehensive and the entries should remain brief -- and that should remain a goal for this article.

• I understand that this is a list, but lists are still subject to the same rules for encyclopedic content. You're right in that it should remain brief, but without real-world relevance this page is basically a plot summary. Bevity isn't our primary goal - quality is. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I probably misunderstood your first post. Given your subsequent reference to WP:SS, I now understand you to mean that individual entries should be fleshed out and moved to separate articles, leaving a brief entry here with a link to the article. That's fine with me, in principle.
• But that's what we are already doing. Some of these entries (like Andúril / Narsil) do have links to separate articles. But most of the items listed here already cover the notable information about the item in question -- often all of the information. There's no point in creating separate articles for them.

• If something on this list doesn't have any connection to the real world, it's not worth listing. For many of these, I suspect that there is probably some secondary information that connects them to reality somehow. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, from the Project page you can see that the Project is already under some pressure to adopt a strategy directly counter to yours: to eliminate short articles of "dubious notability" and merge the material into other articles, some of which will probably end up being lists very much like this one.

• Not everything needs to be in its own article, just in an article that explains why it's important. For example, the cultural impact of the Witch-king's weapons could be explained in the Witch-king of Angmar article; I agree that they don't need their own page. Now that you mention it, I notice that this list actually has only one secondary source, and itself has "dubious notability". What do you think of merging this stuff into other articles? --Explodicle (T/C) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your choice of example is not ideal. First, as I said above, Andúril is not typical, simply because we do have a lot of information about it. Second, as an example of "out-of-universe" treatment, the separate article Narsil fails almost completely: its first two sections tell how the books describe it; the third how the films describe it. None of this is noticeably "out-of-universe". Only the brief final section gives some background about how Tolkien came to the concept of "the sword that was broken". What you seem to be asking for, then, is expanded treatment rather than "out-of-universe" treatment; but for most of these entries, "expanded" would be difficult.

• True, it's not perfect, but it at least has some out-of-universe context (oversights and changes in the movie, DVD commentary, etc), which I think is a step in the right direction. To be clear, I am asking for out-of-universe treatment; the example article just happens to be expanded. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• You have not responded to my question about the "List-class" designation. The Project maintains a separate rating scale for lists. You seem not to have taken this into account.

Elphion (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• You can go ahead and re-rate it if you'd like, no problem. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a book about weapons and armour in the film, but that's not really to do with the topic of weapons and armour in the books. Here we go: [1]. Probably too in-universe for some people's tastes, but might have snippets of information suitable to bolster this article in the general section. Will try to find articles in the secondary literature that have a primary focus on weapons and armour. Carcharoth (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

---

It's been a few months now, and the in-universe style and primary sources remain. I'm going to wait another week or so for entries to be improved, and then I will start trimming out the fat. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say most of us don't see it as a problem. If you want spend time adjusting the style, fine. But much of the value of this list derives from its comprehensiveness, so I hope you are not intending to remove items. Also, add non--primary references, by all means; but don't remove the primary ones, as these show where Tolkien describes these items. Elphion (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

When coverage of an element of fiction is purely a plot summary, most Wikipedians do see it as a problem. If there is no real-world context behind a specific item or group of common items, that's what its section is; a plot summary. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a secondary source mentioned which you seem to have overlooked: J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia [2] Some content may be able to stay here, others can be merged into other entries or even articles. Dailir the arrow into Belthronding the bow, for example. Going by Google searching, Beren's sword Dagmor is not in the book (we were more thorough) so it can be merged with Beren, probably. Uthanc (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Subsections for items?

Editing items in this list is awkward because you have to edit the whole section ("Specific Items" or "General Information"). Should we convert this list to look more like List of Middle-earth animals, where each entry is a separate subsection? There is special magic there to make the TOC run down the right side of the page. Elphion (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Glamdring

Has anyone noticed that in LOTR 1 Glamdring does not glow blue like sting in Moria? (nor in any other place, just specifing Moria)isn't that weird? Anyone have any idea why they didn't make it glow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.124.182 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Warranty's probably expired. Elphion (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pippins Barrow-Blade

It was indeed the Barrow-Blade that Pippin offered his service to Gondor with, but i believe when he was attired he was given a blade of Gondor, anyone know differently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.42.88 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No sword of Gondor is described when Pippin acquires his livery (a true sword would have been unwieldy for him anyway); and in the battle before the Black Gate he's clearly using the Barrow-blade. Elphion (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Layout

I prefer this layout, seems cleaner: [3] Uthanc (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading "Subsections" (above) I'm changing it back to that way, sorry. Uthanc (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename?

This is starting to look more like a solid article and less like a list. Does anyone think renaming to Weapons and armour of Middle-earth (or whatever) would be a good idea? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a half-bad idea. (Note that Weapons of Middle-earth currently redirects here.) The "article-list" goes into considerable detail about Tolkien's overall conception of weapons and their place in Middle-earth. The only other option would be to split it into an article and then a list, but I personally do not think there is quite enough detail in either section to warrant that. –The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 21:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Aiglos

Aiglos is mentioned in the Lord of the Rings as well as silmarilion and unfinished tales, (which is what are currently cited). I think it would be better to have a reference to the main novel where it exists, but as I don't know the format for citing novels I'll just leave this here. In my edition (Collins) Aiglos is mentioned on p237, first couple of pages in 'the council of elrond'. If someone who knows how to do it comes across this and adds it, that'd be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.157.138 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a ref to "The Council of Elrond". -- Elphion (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Narsil

"The incident involving Aragorn disarming reluctantly is omitted from the second film on the grace that the sword he surrenders there is not Andúril." — Which incident is implied here exactly? This should be stated more clearly afaic. Can anybody tell by any chance what this is supposed to be about?--Moduin (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Before entering Théoden's hall, Aragorn, Gandalf, Gimli and Legolas have to leave their weapons (though Gandalf does keep his staff). Wikipedia mentions the scene in the article on Háma the doorward. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a point of difference between the book and the film. In the book Narsil is reforged before the fellowship leaves Rivendell - and at Edoras Aragorn is reluctant to hand it over to anyone else before entering the hall. He therefore places it by the door himself, says what it is, and warns the guards not to touch it. In the films, the story was changed, so that Aragorn does not receive the reforged sword until Elrond brings it to him at Dunharrow, just before they take the Paths of the Dead. That means that the sword he was carrying up to that point in the film was not Narsil/Anduril, and that there was no reason for any reluctance about leaving it at the door. The film did not, therefore, follow the book at that point. I am not sure why the article says "on the grace that" - I would have thought it should be "on the grounds that" Wymspen (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)