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)


 * So what happened to this? Community consensus was Merge as a result yet it was never merged?! Winterz (talk) 21:39, February 24, 2013 (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)
 * Yes, common sense. Winterz (talk) 21:20, February 24, 2013 (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)


 * I vote Yes and No. If the other two were well-established articles I'd say leave them separate. But there's not really anything in those articles except mentioning that Tolkien was influenced by them. Accordingly, I think the best thing would be to delete those two pages, and have the information be part of an "Influences on Tolkien's writing" (or some such) paragraph in the Tolkien Mythology page, with the names of those sagas linked to respective Wikipedia articles on them. However, if someone were willing to write a complete separate article on each saga them, and if admin considers that articles about myths that are non-Tolkien but influenced him are appropriate for this Wikia, then they should be separate articles. But right now, the links for them should go to Wikipedia. - Gradivus, 14:53, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes per DarkLantern. Although we should probably get rid of the stubs. Winterz (talk) 21:44, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

The merging of Black Uruk and Uruk-hai
This should be merged with the Uruk-hai page as another type of Uruk. I vote yes.--DarkLantern (talk) 09:19, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

I vote no. I mean, the Uruk-hai page is about those of Isengard, not Mordor, whilst the Black uruk page  is about the uruks of Mordor.--Saurons man (talk) 06:56, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

I vote '''no. '''The ones of Mordor are the Uruks under Sauron's dominion, and are mentioned in the other page. Enough stands so that they don't need to be merged. The other page is mainly of Saruman's Uruks, which came after the Black Uruks. HiddenVale 01:12, January 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * They are still Uruk-hai!--DarkLantern (talk) 12:22, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * So, is that a no?--Saurons man (talk) 7:44, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I vote no. It's easier, I think, to distinguish certain classes of a same race with two different pages. TheGoldenSickle (talk) 22:35, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * I vote no. It's easier, I think, to distinguish certain classes of a same race with two different pages. TheGoldenSickle (talk) 22:35, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

The merging of Goblins with Orcs
See discussion under "Articles for deletion." Tolkien used goblins in The Hobbit as a substitution for orcs because he wanted to use English to make the book as simple as possible. He never meant for goblins to be considered a different species or even a type or class of orc; he just wrote goblin in situations where he would write orc in later books. Even if there is a contention that the word should continue to mean a type of orc, as is believed by some, that can be discussed in the merged page. - Gradivus, 11:59, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The two terms aren't quite synonyms; the pages work how they are without confusion, and is already specified that they are almost on and the same. On this Wiki, Peter Jackson's films also take part in everything they include. On a site only about the vast content of Tolkein's works, this would be reasonable. But not here. That is why the Deletion-template is removed on the Goblins page. HiddenVale 20:07, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Tolkien considered them synonyms, and I think Tolkien has to be the ultimate arbiter on this point. And here's what he actually wrote:
 * "Also the Orcs (goblins) and other monsters bred by the First Enemy are not wholly destroyed." - The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #131: To Milton Waldman
 * "Orcs ... owe, I suppose, a good deal to the goblin tradition (goblin is used as a translation in The Hobbit, where orc only occurs once, I think)..." - The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #144: To Naomi Mitchison
 * "Your preference of goblins to orcs involves a large question and a matter of taste, and perhaps historical pedantry on my part. Personally I prefer Orcs (since these creatures are not 'goblins', not even the goblins of George MacDonald, which they do to some extent resemble)." - The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #151: From a letter to Hugh Brogan, explaining why he decided to stop calling the creatures "goblins" except when characters were speaking colloquially, and preferred using "orcs" when talking about them.
 * "Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbits' form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin-kind." - JRR Tolkien, in a note in the revised edition of The Hobbit, explaining why he had originally not used "orc" when talking about orcs in that book. When he says "these creatures" he's talking about the creatures he referred to as "goblins" in The Hobbit.
 * - Gradivus, 15:16, December 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for leaving the Merge-template on the page until it's had a chance to be voted on and a decision by Admin has been made. I vote merge. - Gradivus, 20:21, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well you're welcome. I vote not merge.  HiddenVale 00:08, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gradivus merge--DarkLantern (talk) 09:17, December 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Am I allowed to vote here? If so I vote not merge. -The Forgotten Beast (talk) 01:48, January 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * I also vote not merge.  TheGoldenSickle (talk) 22:32, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Chronology of the Lord of the Rings
This article should be merged with Timeline of Arda. I vote Yes.--DarkLantern (talk) 15:02, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, per above. Winterz (talk) 21:22, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

The Fall of Arnor
This article should be merged with Angmar War but only in the Portrayal in adaptations section. I vote Yes.--DarkLantern (talk) 15:02, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

English language
This article should be merged with Old English language. I vote Yes.--DarkLantern (talk) 15:02, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Glorfindel and Glorfindel of Gondolin
(The first is for Glorfindel of Rivendell, the second for Glorfindel of Gondolin.)

Here are my reasons for voting keep both: As I think is fairly well explained on the pages, it's accepted by some that they are the same person, and it's accepted by others that they are not. It's quite clear from Tolkien's notes that when he wrote The Lord of the Rings they were definitely not supposed to be the same person (The Peoples of Middle-earth (The History of Middle-earth, Vol. 12): XIII Last Writings, Glorfindel). Because he later wanted to maintain the idea that one elf's name was never duplicated by another, near the end of his life (1972) he put his idea for explaining that the one was the reincarnation of the other, in his private notes. However, he never implemented this in any of his stories, published or unpublished, and therefore there is still no justification in canon that they are the same person. It's certainly possible to think of them as the same person, but the question is still open enough, and the controversy so genuine, that having two separate pages is justified.

Another reason for keeping them separate pages even if the second Glorfindel were accepted as a reincarnation of the first, is that the two "lives" were very separate and were not part of the same story or even the same epoch, So it makes more sense to have different entries for the two, as long as it is clearly explained (as it is, in both pages) that Tolkien's private notes indicated that the second Glorfindel could be a reincarnation of the first.

You can read more about the controversy in The Problem of the Two Glorfindels in the Encyclopedia of Arda. []

The World of Arda and Tolkien
This article should be merged with Tolkien Mythology. I vote merge.--DarkLantern (talk) 05:26, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Merging Quest of the Ring with The Lord of the Rings
I vote merge. Everything on the Quest of the Ring page is also covered on the Lord of the Rings page, which is essentially the story of the Quest of the Ring anyway. - Gradivus, 21:53, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because the latter is a real-life article with everything that goes on in the novel. The Quest of the Ring article is the in-universe counterpart that tells of the journey to destroy the ring, seems worthy enough of an article, considering that some of the novel details do not belong in the Journey's story. Winterz (talk) 21:16, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

The merging of The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II with Mordor powers, Isengard powers and Goblin powers. (Voting closed)
Motivation: The information in section Powers in "The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II" is almost the same as these three have. Also there seems to be no link between "The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II" and the three, so that if someone wanted to see them, they would have to know there actually was a separate page for them. Morgoth&#39;s Ring 20:10, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--DarkLantern (talk) 11:18, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Williggy (talk) 16:41, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Merged and matter closed.--DarkLantern (talk) 22:42, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

The merging of giants, Stone giants, and Mountain Giant (Voting closed)
Someone else put the Merge template on the Mountain Giant page, I just edited it by putting the template on the Giants page as well. The first thing I noticed is that the giants being talked about on the Mountain Giant page seem to be from video games and/or a playset. I also noticed that the Stone Giants page and the Giants page seem to be talking about the same thing, so I included that page in with the mix. I vote merge all of them, but at least merge the two pages that both seem to be talking only about the giants that were throwing boulders in The Hobbit. - Gradivus, 23:26, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

I vote yes also; the Stone and Mountain Giants pages are basically duplicates. All the information should stay on the Giants page, while the other to would be deleted. HiddenVale 01:31, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

Like the reasons discussed above, Giants and the others are basically the same. The Giants page and the Stone Giants have even the same information. In the other versions of the legendarium, Tolkien mentioned many different kinds of Giants, but all were the same. In other words, I vote YES. - Darkchylde (talk) 10:15, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

While I approve of the merging of the pages - Giants and Stone Giants. I do not approve of a merge with Mountain Giants and Stone Giants. They are different species not the same. I vote NO TheGoldenSickle (talk) 22:37, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * I vote Yes. In all those articles it clearly states they are all they same peoples. The same that attacked Thorin and Company in The Hobbit.--DarkLantern (talk) 22:44, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * Merged all into Giants and matter closed.--DarkLantern (talk) 04:11, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

The merging of Battle for Middle Earth and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth (Voting closed)
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)


 * Merge HiddenVale  23:09, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Already merged!--DarkLantern (talk) 23:36, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

The merging of Olog-hai and Mountain-trolls (Voting closed)
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)
 * No same reason as Winterz--DarkLantern (talk) 03:41, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

The merging of Goodbody with Goodbody family (Voting closed)
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)


 * Since this falls under a Naming Standard situation, I am going make the finial decision on this not just for this but for all of them. I have chosen the plurals form as it takes many people to make up a family.--DarkLantern (talk) 02:16, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Merged and matter closed--DarkLantern (talk) 11:01, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

The merging of The Hobbit and The Hobbit: There and Back Again (voting closed)
Motivation: Both articles are talking about the same thing. In the Bilbo Baggins article, the words "There and Back Again" are hyper-linked 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)


 * I've changed my vote and my mind. One is the book and one is the movie they should be kept separate. This consideration is closed.--DarkLantern (talk) 10:24, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call. There's enough confusion between books and movies without trying to fit all the info about entire movies onto the book version page. - Gradivus, 16:06, December 30, 2012 (UTC)