Talk:Amras

This article needs to be worked on, in particular the Silmarillion version of the character Amras. - nikolet 21:16, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Ehm ... which version of name belongs with which version of the Legendarium?

As far as I can gather from The Shibboleth of Feanor, in the version where one of the twins died in the Shipburning at Losgar, the one who died (remaining the younger twin with the fathername Telufinwë) was Umbarto/Ambarto. In this version of the Legendarium Amras, subsequently changed to Amros, was the Sindarin form of Ambarussa, the mothername used by both twins, but by others only applied to the older twin, Pityafinwë.

So the article as it stands belongs rather under the title of Amrod (or even Amarthan) with certain corrections to names.

See also Talk:Amrod -- Mithrennaith 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

According to commentary in HoME XII under the mother names on (p.353) and the note 62 (p. 366) Tolkien exchanged mother names of the twins and turned Ambarto into Umbarto to fit the legend: "It was then, no doubt, that my father changed the name Ambarto to Umbarto in the list and reversed the names of the twin brothers (see note 62), so that Ambarussa becomes the elder of the two and Ambarto/Umbarto the youngest of Fëanor's children, as he is in the legend told here." Thus the information of Amras being the fated twin burnt in Losgar seems correct. There is no information on exchanging Amros and Amras on father name list, as I understand only Ambarussa & Ambarto/Umbarto were exchanged, not father nor Sindarin names? Sirielle 17:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct quote, exactly the wrong conclusion, I'm afraid. It was the youngest of the twins that ws burnt in Losgar "in the legend told here", thus according to the quote Ambarto/Umbarto, which is translated into Sindarin (or Sindarized) Amrod/Amarthan, and quite clearly not Amras.

See also Talk:Amrod -- Mithrennaith 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that, when I wrote the previous reply, I had only seen the first version of Sirielle’s post, and had failed to notice that she had changed it straightaway. As a result I had not realised that she had missed the connection between the mothernames and Sindarin names (because I could not conceive that I could ever have failed to see the connection myself), and thus had (wrongly) assumed that she had misinterpreted the legend of the shipburning to arrive at the wrong name for the burned son. Hence my previous reply. I only learned of her actual reasoning when I saw the copy of her (changed) post that she had placed on Talk:Amrod, and so I pointed out there that the Sindarin names are in fact (mostly) the translations or Sindarizations of the mothernames.

Because I failed to notice Sirielle's changes to her post, I also inadvertently overwrote them when replying. Only just now I noticed what had happened, and I have restored her post to the final version she intended. Hence this explanation that I actually replied to another version. (Further explanations on the Sindarizing of the names on Talk:Amrod) -- Mithrennaith 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the information of this article about the death of one of the twins be moved to the article about Amrod? If Amrod is the Sindarin form of Umbarto, and Amras is the Sindarin form of Ambarussa, then it's clear that Amrod was the youngest son who died in Losgar, not the other way around. —Unsigned comment by 95.22.74.92 (talk). at 19:11, 28 April 2014.

Request: merge with Amrod

I don't believe there's anywhere that Amras and Amrod have significant differences of personal attributes or partaking in events. Even the burning in Shibboleth is a story concerning both of them.

It'd be easier to follow as a single page where we can also include details on how and when the names got changed or swapped around. Oberiko (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally Tolkien's twins have tied fates, including Elured and Elurin, who weren't twins in a later version. Perhaps we could do them with all twins. But as for Amrod and Amras I would support providing the later version where their fate was different. Sage (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

At first I was hesitant, since I'm not generally fond of combining characters into one article, but on second thought I actually agree with Oberiko - especially since in some versions, both of the twins were burned at Losgar.

The same goes for Elured and Elurin - these two (regardless of whether or not they were twins) should be combined into one article.

Heck, going even further, we should combine Elladan and Elrohir, as well as Fastred and Folcred as well. I mean - other than their names, what substantial difference is there between the above pairs of characters? - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not going further mentioning Elladan and Elrohir, as they are totally identical in appearances, actions and history. Actually I had been long thinking if TG would adopt such a policy about such twin pairs. Whenever I updated their articles I preferred to work only on Elladan, considering it double work to repeat it in Elrohir; i thought that a future redirect or a merging would be more sensible. We also have paired articles like fea and hroa, and Two Trees (despite having individual articles). Sage (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like we're in broad agreement, what's the process from here? Stick a "Merge" template on the pages and then let it sit for a bit to gather more opinions?

Also, is there a general policy page to petition this as a general rule (ex. "if multiple characters/places/objects share the vast majority of their attributes and history, it is better to consolidate them on a single page")? The various pages for each of Barahir's outlaws is another example of where I think we'd better with a single overview. Oberiko (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%. BTW, you should join our Discord, where we constantly discuss these things in real-time. - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

So, it's over two months and the discord seems to be without consensus (seems mostly positive though?). What would be a good next step? Perhaps creating an Amrod and Amras page and then choosing between the merge vs. individual? Oberiko (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I was originally opposed to the idea but it has grown on me. My main concern was what would readers look for on the wiki, and I think they would look for individual characters rather than articles on multiple ones.

However I think simple redirects resolve that, only leaving what impact it may have on Google search rankings?

Anyway I think there is a consensus that you can create a joint article from scratch using the details from both pages and add redirects to the individual ones. JR Snow (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I made a sort of a proof-of-concept article on Hengest and Horsa, with LorenzoCB's blessings a few months ago. You can look at the histories of the (now) redirects Hengest and Horsa to compare the combined article with its two predecessors and see how they compare - I am, of course, of the opinion that the combined article is superior, but then again I'm biased.

As to your point about readers 'not finding the relevant articles', I genuinely still don't understand how that was even a concern to begin with, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something? - IvarTheBoneless (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I was incorrect in my initial objection, hence why I said I have changed my mind about it. I still don’t know the impact joint articles vs individual ones has on the result of Google searches (we all want TG to rank higher than the ‘other’ wiki, right?) so that’s an unknown.

Regardless, I am agreeing that it should be done. JR Snow (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I have a proposed version for the merger: User:Oberiko/Amrod_and_Amras. Any objection if I put it up and redirect the Amrod and Amras pages? Oberiko (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)