LOTR:Articles to be merged

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

===The merging of List of Minor Battles in Middle-earth and 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 (Voting Closed)===


 * 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)

Yes under Minor Battles of the War of the Ring --Will k Talk to me! 01:08, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority rules is that the articles will be merged as Battles of the War of the Ring and will include all the battles of the War of the Ring summarized but not detailed with a link to the already existing page if there is one.--DarkLantern 08:05, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * On it.--Nognix 20:02, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Goodbody with Goodbody family
Both are of the same Hobbit family. Also, looking at Category:Hobbit Families, there appears to be no standard for the naming of family articles. The words "family" and "clan" appear irregularly, and whilst the singular is used for most of them, a couple (Fairbairns and Gardners) use plurals.--DrewMek 19:24, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good case for merger! But which name? See Category talk:Hobbit Families. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 15:37, July 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, merge under the "Goodboy Family" name. -- Winterz (Talk) 17:01, August 27, 1715 (UTC)


 * Yes under Goodbody Family. I would also suggest the form of (singular family name) Family for Hobbit Family articles, with other variants (clan etc) being mentioned within the article itself.--Wyvern Rex. 11:00, August 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * The main question is whether to standardize these family names for example: family at the end of them all or just the family name.--DarkLantern 02:56, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Minor Places with Places
I vote yes for the stake of good order. Why have a separate article for the Minor places?--DarkLantern 13:48, September 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Changing vote. Sure.--Nognix 21:22, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Olog-hai and Mountain-trolls
Motivation: The Trolls article states the Olog-Hai are a breed of Mountain Trolls. I have no knowledge of this (though I admit my knowledge isn't what it was) but I'm merely stating the article states it. --Nognix 09:09, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, even if related by ancestry, the Olog-hai have developed into a far better specimen(and far different too) so they deserve their own article. (Btw hai, I'm back) Winterz 01:01, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of The Hobbit and The Hobbit: There and Back Again
Motivation: Both articles are talking about the same thing. In the Bilbo Baggins article, the words "There and Back Again" are hyperlinked but lead to the The Hobbit. --Nognix 23:58, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--DarkLantern 00:02, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes.--Wyvern Rex. 09:32, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes Not much of a discussion here anyway. Winterz 01:02, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Tolkien Mythology, Völsunga saga and Hervarar saga into Tolkien Mythology
Motivation: See no need for separate articles, let's merge! --Nognix 02:00, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--Wyvern Rex. 09:33, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Both the Völsunga saga and the Hervarar saga should remain separate. The Tolkien Mythology page was really meant to be an overview (generalization) of the composition and influences of works made by Tolkien. I propose that the Tolkien Mythology page mention them in passing and the two incomplete articles be completed in full. I vote No.--DarkLantern 10:35, January 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's fine if someone wants to write a bit more on the two sagas, right now, they add nothing of importance as the articles are only one line long.--Nognix 21:18, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Battle for Middle Earth and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Motivation: The page has a merge template bus has never been discussed before. I think they should be merged.--Nognix 15:03, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--DarkLantern 22:10, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Saruman's staff, Wizard Staff and Gandalf the Grey's Staff of Power under a certain name
Motivation: The Saruman's staff, as well as the Gandalf's staff articles are quite vague and state nothing but obvious things. I think the given information could easily be centralised and covered in another article, not necessarily the Wizard staff article.--Nognix 15:28, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Saruman's staff and Gandalf's staff are completely different things. The pages are not very well made, but this does not mean combine them. These pages should be improved, not combined.

Rangerbowman23

The merging of Pauline Baynes and Miss Pauline Baynes
Motivation: Same person, the Miss Pauline Baynes has some extra information which is why it isn't the articles for deletion list.--Nognix 15:39, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--DarkLantern 22:10, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * totally99.20.251.219 22:18, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, Winterz 01:03, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of The Fell Beasts of the Nazgul and Fell Beast
Motivation: They already have the merge template but were never discussed, I think they should be merged.--Nognix 15:52, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--DarkLantern 22:10, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, if under the "Fell Beast" name ofc. Winterz 01:04, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Evil Eye and Eye of Sauron
Motivation: Both articles discuss the same thing.--Nognix 16:40, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--DarkLantern 22:10, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe "Evil Eye" article should be deleted not merged. Seems a lot fanon-like to me. When was the eye ever mentioned as a separate creature?! Winterz 01:06, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Dol Guldur Mouth and Mouth of Sauron
Motivation: Both pages are on the same subject.--Nognix 17:04, February 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no documentation that the Mouth of Sauron was the originally this character at all and that picture quite possibly came out of the Dol Guldur book which was a companion book to the Middle-earth Role Playing game.--DarkLantern 22:10, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * So... That's pro or contra?--Nognix 19:14, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes to merging but the text and the image MUST be placed under a Non-canonical header on the Mouth of Sauron article.--DarkLantern 06:12, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Bow and Bow of the Galadhrim
yes, because there is not very much info on bow of the galadhrim

Agreed--DarkLantern 09:04, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure and not that only. Pretty much every with such low-sized text should be merged and put under a subtittle like "Types" or "Variants".