LOTR:Articles to be merged

I'll leave the voting open until all articles are decided on and merged to encourage others to vote, see who else will show up, and to perhaps discover others that could be merged. Please do not proceed with a merge of any of these articles yet until I conclude things.

It has come to my attention that there are several articles here that are under different names but are essentially the same thing, but should be merged into one article under one name. But which name should it be? So I am gathering votes for the merging of such articles and under what name they should be under. After all votes are counted, I will close matters and draw-up a set of guidelines and the articles can then be merged.

Please be sure to read the guidelines before merging anything please.

Articles in Question
For closed discussions see: Forum:Articles to be merged/Closed discussions

The merging of Chronology of the Lord of the Rings with Timeline of Arda
I vote Yes--DarkLantern 00:35, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Reason: In my opinion, Chronology of the Lord of the Rings is one of the most important events of all Arda's timeline and so it does deserve an independent page. Also because they clearly are not the same thing although one belongs to another and it may help more someone which is interested in learning about the Lotr chronology and not scroll all Arda's timeline looking for some Lotr related events which may not even belong to it. Example: Third Age-Winterz 19.33, October 4, 2010 (GMT)
 * Keep Separate: Timeline of Arda is a good general article, and the timelines of the individual ages can be used to go into greater depth about the events. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 00:49, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Chronology of the Lord of the Rings (Those three books being the reason why most of the readers are here.) is a useful reference.--Wyvern Rex. 18:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine the way they're. EvilHeroDarkGaia 20:40, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The Chronology is more detailed and tabulated and would lose some of its value if it had to be squeezed into the timeline. It would also lose its ability to be categorized specifically. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:51, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of List of Minor Battles in Middle-earth & War of the Ring Battles into one article named Minor Battles of the War of the Ring or Other Battles of the War of the Ring

 * I vote Yes under Other Battles of the War of the Ring for it would make more sense. In addition, the article is in need of a major clean up and re-writing and whom ever has the patience to do it should be worthy of a barn star (reward).--DarkLantern 13:09, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * A chapter or page called "Other..." makes sense in print, because it refers to everything other than what has already been mentioned; but it makes no sense as a web page title; "other" than what? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:03, January 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes: It would definitely improve these convoluted matters if they are merged.--Wyvern Rex. 14:04, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: The articles are practically the same, I volunteer to clean them up EvilHeroDarkGaia 14:32, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No: Clearly they are not the same but the second makes more sense within the first but still ... what will happen to the biggest battles of the War of the Ring? They are not minor so I would prefer let it the way they are. Winterz 03:29, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * The titles, if correct, indicate that the pages are not the same. A page called "War of the Ring Battles" should include all battles that were part of that war. The one with "minor" in its title should not (and it may include battles that were in the same period but not part of that war); but where are the criteria for deciding what is "minor", and what is the point of such an article? In addition to the category, which will list all battles in alpha order or similar, it should be possible to have a single grouped list of all battles, without infoboxes to clutter it up, with a Template:Main and brief text for those that have their own article and full details for those that do not. "Battles during the War of the Ring" is probably a good title, having the distinctive word first and covering any other battles that may have happened during that period. You guys who've seen and read more than I have will know whether there were any that weren't part of the War, but that title will mean that it doesn't matter. So this is a qualified "yes" vote, which may satisfy the valid concerns of Winterz. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:03, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I say yes every battle is important in all the Middle-Earth history--Aragorn3590 7:38, 1/27/11 (LONG LIVE MIDDLE-EARTH)
 * Yes, under the title of "Battles of the War of the Ring" so its in a similar manner to the way Wookieepedia does things like "Battles of the Galactic Civil War" or "Battles of the Clone Wars", because it works. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:11, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Lord of the Earth with Sauron

 * I don't see why this title gets an own article. This should be mentioned in the article Sauron, that's all. --Weas-El (Talk) 01:06, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. In my opinion, a title should only have its own page if more than one individual bore the name.--Wyvern Rex. 11:45, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there´s no reason for there to be an article about "Lord of the Earth" anyway, since nobody will search for it and it only applies to Sauron so they will go to his page. All the information on this page should just be added to Sauron's. EvilHeroDarkGaia 14:33, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I say No. There are many such examples of independent articles on titles and we should not combine them all with others. In this case, we are not just talking about one or two sentences here there is a small history on the title there.--DarkLantern 05:26, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * If (as seems likely) that title applied to only one person, there's no need for a separate article about it. Merge the title material into his page and leave the title as a redirect (since nobody can be sure that "nobody will search for it"). — Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:10, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Fictional universe, Legendarium and Mythology into one article known as Tolkien Mythology

 * All participates should vote on both the merging and the title and if they don’t like that one, they would be free to suggest another.

I vote Yes. All three of these articles and their contents are mostly or nearly on the same thing, and could be explained within just one article title.--DarkLantern 05:26, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I make DarkLantern's words mine while completly agreeing. Merging it into a paged named "Tolkien Mythology" looks actually pretty good. Although I still have some doubts about the "Fictional Universe" article being also merged. Winterz 00:24, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes under Tolkien Mythology.--Wyvern Rex. 09:47, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, under Tolkien Mythology. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:13, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Frodo's Journey: Part 1 and Frodo's journey to Mordor into the Quest of the Ring
The text is not worthless but I do not believe in these separate parts of what is the same thing.--DarkLantern 20:26, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just like there's no reason for Sauron's lord titles to have a separate page there isnt any sense in keeping this ones also separated. Frodo's Journey: Part 1 should actually be a subtitle of Frodo's Journey to Mordor and consequently Frodo's Journey to Mordor within Quest of the Ring's single page. Winterz 00:22, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes unless the ultimate result would be a very very long article. Merging the three as they are would not result in too much length, but a full treatment of Quest of the Ring would cover a huge amount of material, wouldn't it? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:41, January 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well if those articles were way more complete than it would clearly become that huge amount of information you are mentioning, but how they are now...it makes it indeed worth merging. Winterz 00:50, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes as these should indeed be one article.--Wyvern Rex. 09:47, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, under the Quest of the Ring. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:15, February 9, 2011 (UTC)