***Poll of the references of Rúmil and Pengoloð in the Ainulindalë ***

[Maédhros]

The Following Poll is to decide to leave the references in the Ainulindalë of Rúmil and Pengoloð in our text.
The advantage that I see is:

1. that leaving them will make our text less prone to editing and deleting of JRRT's intentions.

2. Rúmil and Pengoloð do not contradict the later notions the way that Ælfwine or Eriol does.

The disavdantage is:

1. In the Published Silmarillion, i don't recall any mention of either Rúmil or Pengoloð in it.

I'm sure that Aiwnedil or someone else can bring up other ideas as to why keep or get rid of them.

[lindil]

Well since I suggested it I might as well come up to bat first.

In eliminating Aelfwine [which I am extremely loathe to do, but as all have said, Bilbo seems to have definetively replaced him] we are left with many other references in the last Ainulindale to Rumil and Pengolodh. And indeed they are scattered throught the 'Silmarillion', the Narn and various other texts, such as on Lembas, and the Akallabeth as mentioned in HoM-E 12.

So what we do here requires careful thought and perhaps more study than we have given it.

I have a question to ask before I vote.

Do we have instances of JRRT himself expunging Aelfwine/Pengoldh/Rumil from his later 50's and 60's era texts?

If so that would give us, at least a precedent.

And conversely do we have any texts that were revised very late [say after 67?] wherein the three [in varying combinations of course] are retained, even as JRRT continued revision or creation.

I do not have any ready answer to these queries, but I think they [ or more detailed variants of them] would go along way to educating or perhaps eliminating the need for a vote.

As a sample here is what the opening of the Ainulindale could look like without Aelfwine but with Pen. and Rumil.

Ainulindalë

The Music of the Ainur
<font color="FFFF00">This was made by Rúmil of Túna in the Elder Days. It is here written as it was spoken in Eressëa {to Ælfwine} by Pengoloð the Sage. To it are added the further words that Pengoloð spoke at that time concerning the Valar, the Eldar and the Atani; of which more is said thereafter

One may also question keeping Eressea, it could be explained by the unstated hypothesis that Elves in Eressea heard it and transmitted the tale [with Pengolodh Rumil and all] to Numenor or if we want to take Bilbo's collecting of written and living sources to it's logical extreme, Glorfindel could be the source!


I think keeping Eressea, is far less essential than Pengolodh and Rumil.

So anyway I lean towards keeping Rumil and Pengolodh, as I have said, but only if we can reasonably justify it, or conversely, taking them out only if we can find examples of JRRT doing it, or face intractable contradictions [ such as Eressea may prove to be].

Also to aid in minimal chaos, let's keep further non-voting discussion back in the Ainulindale thread in the public forum and keep this thread purely for voting, and any comments that may accompany a vote.

[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I think we should get rid of Rumil and Pengolod, because:

1. I preffered the Silmarillion style of writing, without constant interuptions, such as 'So sayeth Rumil'.

2. I think a newcomer may find it easier without the interuptions as well.

3. I prefer to think that Bilbo wrote it. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Eru]

i'm going to have to agree with Inderjit on this one. especially the sil. style writing.

[Aiwendil]

I'll post this to the public forum as well, but since it does more or less sum up my vote:

Lindil:

Do we have instances of JRRT himself expunging Aelfwine/Pengoldh/Rumil from his later 50's and 60's era texts?

We have, as far as I can find, no such instances. My search was fairly cursory, though, so I may have missed something.

One may also question keeping Eressea, it could be explained by the unstated hypothesis that Elves in Eressea heard it and transmitted the tale [with Pengolodh Rumil and all] to Numenor or if we want to take Bilbo's collecting of written and living sources to it's logical extreme, Glorfindel could be the source!

I think it's better to drop Eressea. Any justification that we might concoct for keeping it would be just that: a concoction. The fact is that in the text, Eressea appears because Pengolodh is speaking to Aelfwine there. Eliminate that conversation (as we must) and you eliminate Eressea.

Inderjit Sanghera:

1.I preffered the Silmarillion style of writing, without constant interuptions, such as 'So sayeth Rumil'.

2. I think a newcomer may find it easier without the interuptions as well.

3. I prefer to think that Bilbo wrote it.

Two points. First, the decision is not to be based on preference. Whether we prefer one style or another is not the issue. Second, I think such interruptions will have to be taken out in any case, because they rely not only on Rumil and Pengolodh, but also on Aelfwine.

It should be noted that the matter of Aelfwine is quite distinct from the existence of Pengolodh and Rumil. Aelfwine's place in the transmission of the legends is called into doubt by the following:

1. The Change of the World. In BoLT, there is no reason to think that a human could not reach Eressea. But following the appearance of the Numenor legend, a visit by Aelfwine to the Lonely Isle would appear to be impossible.

2. Bilbo's books. These imply that the Quenta Silmarillion and related material passed through the Elves to Bilbo and thus into the Shire. It also firmly establishes the existence of these materials in Middle-earth prior to Aelfwine's hypothetical voyage.

3. The Numenorean authorship. Sometime during or after the writing of LotR, Tolkien seems to have decided that the Quenta Silmarillion was not of Elvish origin, but was a text written in Numenor. There is a difficulty in this, since the change was in part linked to the round world mythology. But I am convinced that the Q.S. must be considered Numenorean. If so, then it was far more likely transmitted to Middle-earth through the Dunedain in the late Second Age than through Aelfwine sometime much later.

So Aelfwine must go. But then, we knew that already. But what of Rumil and Pengolodh? None of these three points seems to apply to them. Nor is there anything in Tolkien's writings that would seem to contradict either their existence or their authorship of certain texts. Bilbo's books were certainly not written by him. They are quite explicitly translations. And the Quenta Silmarillion may indeed be Numenorean, but the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta need not.

So I say: Eliminate Aelfwine. Eliminate references to Pengolodh speaking directly to Aelfwine. But don't expunge Rumil and Pengolodh.

[Alkanoonion]

For me the choice is to leave all references in the Ainulindalë of Rúmil and Pengoloð in.

[antoine2]

hi,

I think it s important to remenber that we don t try to write a modern version of the Silmarillion.
The Silmarillion exist : it s the book of Christopher Tolkien.

But our project is to write "Translation from the Elvish".
A compilation from Bilbo Baggins, wrote in Imladris of Elder Tales.

Our decision should be the decision of Bilbo when he was in the home of Elrond.

Tolkien wrote 6 versions of Ainulindale (BOLT version, A, B, C , D version + C* version).
If the last version use some reference to some writer or to some discussion, why change ? it s the last choice of Tolkien.

I think it s wrong to think that Ainulindale is not Numenorean.
A myth of creation, without Sun and Moon, and with Lamps is definitively human.

So,
I vote to eliminate Aelfwine. (cf Lindil and Co explanation that i follow)
But i vote to not eliminate Eressëa.

I propose:

The Music of the Ainur
This was made by Rúmil of Túna in the Elder Days. It is here written as it was spoken in Eressëa {to Ælfwine} by Pengoloð the Sage. To it are added the further words that Pengoloð {spoke} [wrote] at that time concerning the Valar, the Eldar and the Atani; of which more is said thereafter.

[lindil]

I think it s important to remenber that we don t try to write a modern version of the Silmarillion.
The Silmarillion exist : it s the book of Christopher Tolkien.

An extremely salient point Antoine.

Just to clarify, my vote is now firmly with Rumil and Pengolodh and deleting Aelfwine.

Our situation is in many ways parallel to Bilbo's [sans real Elves to talk to] in that we have a library:
HoME
Silm
UT
The Hobbit
Adventures of TB
The Letters
the RGEO
Various articles of JRRT in the Vinyar Tengwar journal

Not all of which agree with each other [to put it mildly], present varying depths of treatment, are in a variety of languages and dialects, some are of dubious historical 'purity' and the quality of writing varies greatly.

From this we are trying to create a compostite narrative of the pre-LotR era history of M-E and Valinor just as Bilbo did.

But back to the vote;

I would emmend, Antoine, your suggestion in the following way;

The Music of the Ainur
This was made by Rúmil of Túna in the Elder Days. It is here written as it was spoken {in Eressëa to Ælfwine} by Pengoloð the Sage. To it are added the further words [of]that Pengoloð spoke {at that time *}concerning the Valar, the Eldar and the Atani; of which more is said thereafter.

*eliminate because the 'at that time' depends upon Aelfwine.


On the Eressea question, that seems tougher. It seems in the FoG we have been happy to keep ambiguities [that could be explained logically] as long as we do not have to explain them ourselves in the text.

The Eressea reference seems to be of the same order.


Aiwendil posted:

The fact is that in the text, Eressea appears because Pengolodh is speaking to Aelfwine there. Eliminate that conversation (as we must) and you eliminate Eressea.

But could not the same be said of Pengolodh himself? He appears because someone has to speak to Aelfwine.

If we keep the speaker because there are no grounds for contradiction with his presence, should not the same standard apply to the location from whence he speaks?

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Antoine:

But our project is to write "Translation from the Elvish".
A compilation from Bilbo Baggins, wrote in Imladris of Elder Tales.

I'm forced to disagree with this. You're correct that we're not writing The Silmarillion. But neither, I think, are we writing Bilbo's "Translations from the Elvish". That is, our finished text is not meant to literally be the text of Bilbo's books. I was always under the impression, at any rate, that Bilbo's volumes were The Silmarillion, transmitted through Numenor to Rivendell.

If the last version use some reference to some writer or to some discussion, why change ? it s the last choice of Tolkien.

The heart of the problem is, I think, that the last version of the Ainulindale directly contradicts the idea that the legends were transmitted through Bilbo. Bilbo, at any rate, certainly cannot have had a text written by Aelfwine, or even mentioning Aelfwine.

I think it s wrong to think that Ainulindale is not Numenorean.
A myth of creation, without Sun and Moon, and with Lamps is definitively human.

Good point. This is a tricky issue. Never is the Ainulindale ascribed to anyone but Rumil. But certainly if the round world cosmology is true, then it must be Numenorean.

There are really three possible choices with regard to the round world cosmology:

1. A round world Silmarillion. This is explicitly not the goal of this project.

2. A round world cosmology, with the Silmarillion as an incorrect Numenorean version.

3. Flat world cosmology.

So far, we have been ambiguous as to whether we are following 2 or 3. But it seems that following 2 would require the Ainulindale not to have been written by Rumil. On the other hand, 3 was certainly not Tolkien's last idea (either 1 or 2 was).

I think, though, that we can retain the ambiguity between 2 and 3 in either of two ways:

1. Delete any mention of the authorship of the Ainulindale. I am very reluctant to do this, but if it must be done, then it must.

2. Assume that the Ainulindale was originally written by Rumil, but that the Numenorean version is flat earth cosmology.

Now that I think of it, are there really any instances in the Ainulindale that necessitate a flat earth cosmology? There is certainly some confusion, even within the text, as to the exact structure of Ea (note the "innumerable stars" passage). At least on cursory examination, I can find no passages that are unambiguously tied to the flat world version.

If this is the case, then I see no problem in keeping Rumil as the author.

Lindil:

But could not the same be said of Pengolodh himself? He appears because someone has to speak to Aelfwine.

If we keep the speaker because there are no grounds for contradiction with his presence, should not the same standard apply to the location from whence he speaks?

But to whom is he speaking? It seems to me that the only way to keep Pengolodh is to assume that he wrote the material. The only reason he is "speaking" in the original text is that he is instructing Aelfwine, and Aelfwine is recording it. Clearly someone must have recorded it.

Whether he was in Eressea at the time is a separate issue. Here my concern is this: if Pengolodh did not write this until after the War of Wrath and his return to Tol Eressea, how did it come to the Numenoreans? I suppose it could have been brought in the early days of the 2nd age, when contact was still maintained with the Elves. But to me it seems more likely that it was brought by the Edain, along with the rest of their Silmarillion-related lore. I think that eliminating Eressea is the superior choice, because it leaves this ambiguous.

My proposal is, as in the public forum:

This was made by Rúmil of Túna in the Elder Days. {It is here written as it was spoken in Eressëa to Ælfwine by Pengoloð the Sage.} To it are added the further words that Pengoloð {spoke} wrote {at that time} concerning the Valar, the Eldar and the Atani; of which more is said thereafter

I suppose no one is interested in the possibility of doing as CRT did and moving the Pengolodh material to "Of the Beginning of Days"? Such a move would have the virtue, at least, of removing the need to justify Pengolodh's additions.

[HerenIstarion]

Popping in as it was promised (Maedhros, thanks for a PM)

Delete any mention of the authorship of the Ainulindale. I am very reluctant to do this, but if it must be done, then it must

The thing should be done I surmise, however painful it is to cut the living body of the text. I'm basing this opinion on the statement given by Antoine above:

Flat earth cosmology with sun and moon as leaves of trees is certainly human (that's why I was pushing you to repeat the vote on round/flat earth)

There is no need for the History we (or you rather, with my compliments, since I'm so rare a participant, if any) are compiling here to have an author inside itself, if you follow my meaning. It may be presented as a "compilation of such scraps of knowledge that were retained [among Men] of elder days of our [Middle]Earth"

cf the situation by the end of XV c AD IRL (and Tolkien's writings always rang true to me to the extent I was mixing those two up [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] sometimes) when the common folk was sure the Earth was flat, but Columbus, following scientific knowledge known to few was sailing west to reach India.

I'm going too far seemingly, but in this light the first round earth journey of Numenoreans may be presented as an eye-opener for them only.

But I'm straying off topic. My vote would be:

Even if we do not give footnotes with a round earth as a truth known to elves, the text itself must bear the statement that history/legends gathered in compilation are human. Therefore no place for Rumil and Pengolodh is left. Alas.

[lindil]

Sorry for the earlier test. It was no comment on your post H-I!

[Aiwendil]

Flat earth cosmology with sun and moon as leaves of trees is certainly human (that's why I was pushing you to repeat the vote on round/flat earth)

I don't think we can simply decide that the flat earth version is an incorrect human idea and leave it at that. First of all, we don't have unequivocal evidence that this was Tolkien's decision. It's certain that at one point he intended to actually rewrite the Silmarillion with the round earth cosmology. Whether he abandoned this or not is debatable. A bigger problem is this: Tolkien seems to have thought that introducing the round world version made his mythology somehow more scientifically realistic. This simply isn't the case. How, for example, could Earendil have become a star if the stars are in fact balls of plasma millions of kilometres away?

But all that is peripheral. And it's also not a problem unless someone can find a passage in the Ainulindale D that necessitates that the earth is flat. If not, there's no reason that it cannot have been written by Rumil, in any case.

[HerenIstarion]

Sorry for the earlier test. It was no comment on your post H-I!

I know [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Sorry for my remark, if it made you think I was throwing barbed words in that direction. Just a remark, nothing more.

Aiwendil, I see your point, and can not argue against it, what with the lack of textual evidence. So it was agreed in the voting to remove round earth completely. Still, as it goes with voting, I felt inclined to let my personal taste preveil in the case. I honestly think the whole bulk of cosmological legends should be presented as [though elven heritage] come to modern times
through men, and as most things come to us through centuries, broken and perverted.

From a letter to Katherine Farrer

I like the Flat Earth versions best. The hope of Heaven is the only thing which makes modern astronomy tolerable: otherwise there must be an East and a West and Walls: aims and choices and not an endless circle of wanderingThe hope of Heaven is the only thing which makes modern astronomy tolerable: otherwise there must be an East and a West and Walls: aims and choices and not an endless circle of wandering.

I'm drawing hard in what I'm going to add on feelings rather than on facts (which ran as "I like tha Flat Earht versions best" - strict statement. On the other hand, the text immediately following pours the water on the wheels of my mill)

But breaking the truth knowledge received from elves and clinging to thing which gives more hope than the "astronomical" truth ever could, which is more "tolerable", is just the thing human being would do.

Emotiaonal speculation of yours truly, but that's the ground of my vote for removing Pengolodh and Rumil and stating "the legends are [inherited form elves but] human", at least as a footnote.

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion: Don't misunderstand me. I think that in the ideal case, we would retain ambiguity between "flat world" and "round world, flat Silmarillion". In fact, I think that keeping such ambiguity is very good grounds for an argument against ascribing the Ainulindale to Rumil; or it would be if necessary. I've looked over the Ainulindale twice and found nothing in it that unambiguously necessitates the flat earth version. They were cursory scans, so I may have missed something. But if I did not, then there's no problem at all; we can include Rumil without fear, because the Ainulindale could either be from a flat or round world mythology.

Speculation regarding the nature of the myth and so forth is all very interesting, but I think it's unnecessary if the ambiguity holds. What do other people think about this? Is there some obvious passage that I'm missing?

[Eruhen]

In this matter, I know that we need to get rid of all references to Aelfwine, and by extension, Eressea and Pengolodh where they are in the framework of the conversation between Aelfwine and Pengolodh. But, we should keep the parts about Pengolodh adding the Valaquenta to the Ainulindale in Eressea. I know that I sound like I'm parroting Aiwendil, but I honestly believe that this view solves the problem.

By the way, I think that we should stick with a flat-earth Silm. Otherwise, how will we explain the Sinking of Numenor and the Removal of Valinor?

[Eru]

i agree with Eurhen and Aiwendil on this. especially, the flat-earth version. that is one of the most important things to happen in miidle-earth as far as Middle-earth.

the Exiled Numenoreans, for example. how would they have become exiled? i mean, you could rewrite EVERYTHING. anyways, i believe there was already a poll on that subject?

[Maédhros]

I have to say that I would like to keep Ælfwine and Rúmil and as lindil sugested, keep the reference of Eressëa in the Ainulindalë.

[lindil]

Maedhros, do you perchance mean Pengolodh and Rumil ? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Maédhros]

Oops. Yes lindil Pengoloð and Rúmil, and the reference of Eressëa. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[lindil]

Aiwendil posted:

I think it's better to drop Eressea. Any justification that we might concoct for keeping it would be just that: a concoction. The fact is that in the text, Eressea appears because Pengolodh is speaking to Aelfwine there. Eliminate that conversation (as we must) and you eliminate Eressea.

Well, but does not the burden of proof lay for dropping it, i.e. 'keep 'X' until proven problematic/contradictory'?

My concoctions are to not create a scenario that would, within the text be used as an explanation, but rather to illustrate that even if Aelfwine is extracted, Erresea is still viable, and explainable by at least 2 hypothetical, but plausible scenarios. Meaning, that the original text still stands as pausible [inc. Eressea] minus Aelfwine. Eressea does not need Aelfwine to still be a viable place for Pengolodh to have uttered his words and thus in some distant time between the 2nd age arising of Sauron/raising of Eregion [when Pengolodh left] and the time Bilbo was compiling TftE.

So the resulting vagueness of the Aelfwineless text works thus to our advantage.

But to whom is he [Pengolodh-lindil added] speaking? It seems to me that the only way to keep Pengolodh is to assume that he wrote the material. The only reason he is "speaking" in the original text is that he is instructing Aelfwine, and Aelfwine is recording it. Clearly someone must have recorded it.

We need not concern ourselves with whom Pengolodh is speaking. There are thousands of otential audients in Eressea for P. to speak to any one of whom could have written it down. Again the vaugeness of the remaing text works to our advantage in deleting only that which in and of itself [Aelfwine] is contradictory.

Whether he was in Eressea at the time is a separate issue. Here my concern is this: if Pengolodh did not write this until after the War of Wrath and his return to Tol Eressea, how did it come to the Numenoreans? I suppose it could have been brought in the early days of the 2nd age, when contact was still maintained with the Elves. But to me it seems more likely that it was brought by the Edain, along with the rest of their Silmarillion-related lore. I think that eliminating Eressea is the superior choice, because it leaves this ambiguous.

I respectfully disagree - We know from 'Aldarion and Erendis' that Elves came with gifts from Eressea and that this was not a rare thing in the time before the darkening of Numenor. Indeed the last postulate re: Glorfindel [if I recall correctly] is that he came back to M-E via Numenor. Anyway we are not creating a special circumstance to have things coming from Eressea to Numenor. Indeed any Numenorean Silmarillion or Ainulindale would almost certainly have had Elvish/Eressean input.

Aiwendil again: "I suppose no one is interested in the possibility of doing as CRT did and moving the Pengolodh material to "Of the Beginning of Days"? Such a move would have the virtue, at least, of removing the need to justify Pengolodh's additions."

L: If it keeps the 'Yavanna raising her hands' quote in an easier fashion. That is fine with me. CJRT also moved the inro and 'extro' material around as seemed to best work. One of our goals is to keep as much as lore as the principles permit, so it seems your proposed change is theoritically plausible.

A:'Speculation regarding the nature of the myth and so forth is all very interesting, but I think it's unnecessary if the ambiguity holds. What do other people think about this?'

L: agreed.



as an aside:


I'm forced to disagree with this. You're correct that we're not writing The Silmarillion. But neither, I think, are we writing Bilbo's "Translations from the Elvish". That is, our finished text is not meant to literally be the text of Bilbo's books. I was always under the impression, at any rate, that Bilbo's volumes were The Silmarillion, transmitted through Numenor to Rivendell.

[ February 23, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Well, but does not the burden of proof lay for dropping it, i.e. 'keep 'X' until proven problematic/contradictory'?

I think not, not in this case anyway.

If it were the change that we were considering that was of dubious validity, then the burden of proof would be on making the change. But this cannot apply when it is the text that is dubious, and the proposed change is designed to remove a possibly unworkable element.

My concoctions are to not create a scenario that would, within the text be used as an explanation, but rather to illustrate that even if Aelfwine is extracted, Erresea is still viable, and explainable by at least 2 hypothetical, but plausible scenarios.

But whether the explanation is used in the text or is merely our implicit rationale, it is still a concoction. Eressea is indeed explainable, but then so are many things. The question is not whether it is explainable, but whether it is justified, based on the texts.

The whole point, in the text, of "Eressea" is that Aelfwine journeyed there and was told the lore of the Eldar. If we eliminate Aelfwine, we are removing the entire basis for the conversation, as well as moving the conversation back thousands of years. Of course we could construct any number of rationalizations for this move, but then we could make any number of changes to the texts and "explain" them away.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that we must eliminate "Eressea".

So the resulting vagueness of the Aelfwineless text works thus to our advantage.

This particular type of vagueness, though, is not a virtue. Vagueness is a virtue when it allows the ambiguous coexistence of contradictory elements from the texts, when there is not sufficient justification for deciding on any particular choice. But if we keep "Eressea", then the vagueness is only between various rationalizations - not between textual ideas. The only way to retain vagueness concerning the actual idea from the text is to remove "Eressea". Note that in doing so, we never contradict the possibility that Pengolodh spoke those words in Eressea; we merely leave other possibilities open as well.

[HerenIstarion]

Note that in doing so, we never contradict the possibility that Pengolodh spoke those words in Eressea; we merely leave other possibilities open as well

let it be so, than

[Maédhros]

I have pm a number of members so that they could post their votes. I think that we should leave the poll open for another week, that is, if someone has an objection with it.
Aiwendil, good point about Eressëa, it almost makes me wonder about keeping it.

[lindil]

Members please keep your votes confined to the private forum version that will remain [I hope] and general discussive comments in the nerwly created public forum version.

We let the discussion/voting aspects get away from our usual practice [ and I was a prime offender [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] ] and it has caused abit of chaos, but hopefully we can right that situation from here on out.

[Petty Dwarf]

My late vote goes for keeping Rumil and Pengolod.

A Pengolod is needed because, obviously, Rumil never left Aman. The Aelfwine elimination seems clear cut and final (and with him goes Eressea's neccesary part). With Bilbo involved he's no longer a relevant character. Here's my opinion:

This was made by Rúmil of Túna in the Elder Days. It was held in memory by the Exile Pengold and those parts which we learned and remembered were thus set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it.

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Petty Dwarf ]

[Maédhros]

Oops, did someone change the name of this forum? I thought it was called Revised Silmarillion or something like that?

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Maédhros ]

[Aiwendil]

It's a little confusing to have this thread here and in the private forum. Perhaps we should move the tally there.

HerenIstarion, unless I'm misinterpreting, has also voted against Eressea.

And in the private forum, Tirinvo has as well.

[lindil]

Yes, as per my request [ and Aiwendil's agreement] the Forums are now named 'Translations from the Elvish:
public and private.

The reason was two-fold: The old name was long and slightly outmoded.
The new names [and the new order of the Forums] are I think as indicitaive and pithy as we can hope for.

As for the Vote.

Votes go in the private forum.

Comments go here so all can read them.

Welcome on board the team Petty Dwarf, this thread has been a little more challenging to organize than most, so don't worry about any minor misplaced comments or votes.