Forum:Articles to be merged/Archive 2

The merging of Zirak-zigil and Celebdil into on article under the name Celebdil (Voting closed & merged)

 * I vote yes under the name Celebdil it seems more common.--DarkLantern 11:48, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote yes to the merge, however Zirak-zigil is more commonly referred to in the books as the mountain. Perhaps compromising with Silvertine in Westron, rather than the Kuzdul or Sindarin forms should be considered. Is there a de facto language for proper names in the wiki? -- Alvincura 00:28, February 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I'm indecisive about the headword. --Weas-El ( talk &#124; blog ) 07:47, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, as I've only ever heard Zirak-zigil, I would like it titled as such. User:Henneth Annun


 * Yes, and I slightly prefer Zirak-zigil. -Nistra 15:46, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, under Zirak-Zigil. EvilHeroDarkGaia 07:09, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, under Zirak-zigil (the dwarves were there first).--Wyvern Rex. 18:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority vote prevails for the merging of Zirak-zigil and Celebdil under the name Zirak-zigil.--DarkLantern 03:00, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Merged--DarkLantern 03:00, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

The merging of the text of Hammer of the Underworld into two separate articles (voting closed & merged)
One with the text intended for Morgoth's mace entitled (Grond (Mace) and the rest of the text combined with Grond, the great battering ram of Mordor.
 * I vote yes--DarkLantern 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - Razor77 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. -Nistra 14:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - keep Grond as it is, rewrite Hammer of the Underworld to be specifically about Morgoth's weapon. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 00:05, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Wyvern Rex. 18:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote is concluded and merged--DarkLantern 12:50, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

The merging of Noegyth Nibin with Petty-dwarves (voting closed & merged)

 * I vote yes under the name Petty-dwarves.--DarkLantern 04:36, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and merge Petty-dwarves content into the former. Signatures/Fruit.Smoothie 05:36, February 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, merge to Noegyth Nibin, the other name is just a description. --Weas-El ( talk &#124; blog ) 07:47, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Impartial about the name. -Nistra 15:40, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Petty-dwarves, it is more commonly used. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 00:40, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Merge to Noegyth Nibin.EvilHeroDarkGaia 13:27, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I prefer the "Noegyth Nibin" as it is the correct term. Tolkien used petty-dwarves, but more as an AKA.--Wyvern Rex. 18:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Merge to Petty-dwarves, you have to have an encyclopedic memory of names to remember all the names that are given to every people. Petty-dwarves is the most common one.--Nognix 18:43, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Majority rules for the merging of both articles under the name Petty-dwarves.--DarkLantern 17:20, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

The Merging of Eagles, Eagles of Manwë & Great Eagles into one article or the Great Eagles & Eagles of Manwë into one article with Eagles as a separate article (Voting closed & merged)

 * I vote Great Eagles and Eagles of Manwë put together and Eagles remaining separate.--DarkLantern 05:23, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote to merge the content of Great Eagles into Eagles of Manwe, remove overlapping or redundant info, then merge Eagles of Manwe into Eagles, and create the appropriate == Eagles of Manwe == header for it within the aforementioned Eagles article. Fruit.Smoothie 05:37, February 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I say we merge the three to Great Eagles. Eagles isn't relevant, there are no other eagles in the books, as far as I know. --Weas-El ( talk &#124; blog ) 07:47, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Merge all three into Eagles and create sub-headers of the other(s) if needed. -Nistra 15:44, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yes,  into Great Eagles. EvilHeroDarkGaia 07:06, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, into Great Eagles (format like Giant Spiders).--Wyvern Rex. 18:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Merge into Great Eagles.--Nognix 18:51, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Majority vote for the merging of all into Great Eagles--DarkLantern 04:15, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of House of Marach with House of Hador (Voting closed & merged)

 * I vote yes under House of Hador.--DarkLantern 18:20, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm indecisive about the headword, but House of Marach seems to be more appropriate. --Weas-El ( talk &#124; blog ) 07:47, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - These two are indeed the same; however, House of Hador is a much more common name, thus I think it should be kept. 02:35, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. -Nistra 15:37, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, under house of Marach because that the more complete name. EvilHeroDarkGaia 17:13, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, House of Marach for the original name.--Wyvern Rex. 18:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, under House of Marach Reason: Marach is over Hador, while Hador is Marach's grandson(or something like that), his house cannot include Marach's house because they are above him and clearly his ancestors weren't in the House of Hador but his predecessors were under House of Marach.Winterz 15:55, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes under House of Marach. This is the correct canonical name for this particular house of the Edain upon their arrival in Beleriand. During Hador's rule, the House of Marach was also called the Men of Dor Lomin, not the House of Hador. unsigned


 * Yes, House of Marach (the progenitor), with redirects from all its other names. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:57, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Majority vote for House of Marach--DarkLantern 06:53, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Peredhil with Half-elven (voting closed & merged)
I vote yes under its most common name Half-elven.--DarkLantern 18:49, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes for me too, but I suppose this brings up a recurring question: are articles to be titled with most popular name, or with the name in it's respective "original" language? I vote for more popular, as many fans have no desire to find and are not familiar with Quenya, Sindarin, etc, names. I feel compelled to imagine that Tolkien would have very much preferred his own invented names...


 * I vote Yes, under Peredhil. I prefer the original names. --Uldor 20:47, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote yes to merging, but I think it must still be answered if Westron (English) or Sindarin is the de facto "standard" language. -- Alvincura 00:29, February 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I'm indecisive about the headword. --Weas-El ( talk &#124; blog ) 07:47, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the standard language/naming needs to be determined in general for all articles. -Nistra 15:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, indecisive about the headword but leaning towards Peredhil to help differentiate from half-elves in other fantasy settings. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 00:36, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, under Peredhil, because I agree with McJeff. EvilHeroDarkGaia 13:31, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - Tolkien's intention was to present his saga as a translation. The original names are therefore the only truly accurate descriptor of his unique mythos, so I vote for Peredhil.--Wyvern Rex. 18:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, under Half-elven. Reason: because it is clearly the most famous and easiest name....after all, how many people knows them as Peredhil and how many know them simply as Half-elven. Winterz 15:50, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, under Peredhil to conform with such pages as Uruk-hai and Olog-hai, because as long as Half-elven is used as a redirect it should work well. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:01, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority rules for Peredhil--DarkLantern 19:42, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Mitheithel with Hoarwell (voting closed & merged)

 * I vote yes. Hoarwell seems the more common Mannish translation.--DarkLantern 16:31, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hoarwell is fine, but again, a standard article naming rule would be good to have. -Nistra 15:35, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Slight preference for Mitheithel, Hoarwell seems to be a local name.--Wyvern Rex. 18:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Very slight preference for Mitheithel, in the absence of a naming convention and in regards to a little-mentioned waterway, default to Elven name. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 05:59, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Mitheithel prefered. EvilHeroDarkGaia 20:37, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, under Mitheithel to make it similar to Bruinen/Loudwater. Aren't many of the locations Sindarin names with prominent Common Speech (Westron, represented by English) translations? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:24, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority rules for Peredhil--DarkLantern 19:42, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Fictional universe, Legendarium and Mythology into one article known as Tolkien Mythology (voting closed & merged)

 * 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)

Yes, that seems acceptable. --Will k Talk to me! 01:10, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Votes agree to merge.--DarkLantern 01:52, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Frodo's Journey: Part 1 and Frodo's journey to Mordor into the Quest of the Ring (voting closed & merged)
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)

Yes, that seems the smart thing to do. --Will k Talk to me! 01:11, April 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Votes agree merge.--DarkLantern 07:06, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Gorkil the Goblin King‎ with Gorkil (voting closed & merged)
Both articles describe the same character. -- Weas-El  Talk|Contribs  23:29, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes under Gorkil.--Wyvern Rex. 08:02, April 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that sounds like a good idea.--DarkLantern 00:11, April 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes under Gorkil with Gorkil the Goblin King's content. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:29, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Zeta1127.--DrewMek 19:30, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Merged--DarkLantern 22:21, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Lord of the Earth with Sauron (Voting closed & already merged)

 * 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 is 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)
 * There was only one Lord of the Earth, so Yes. --Will k Talk to me! 01:09, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, per others.--DrewMek 19:30, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * No --Thijs95 14:48, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Majority votes for the merging--DarkLantern 22:56, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * Yes --Will k Talk to me! 01:07, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * By majority vote these two articles will remain separate.--DarkLantern 16:02, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of Chronology of the Lord of the Rings with Timeline of Arda (voting closed)
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)


 * Yes --Will k Talk to me! 01:07, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority rules. The articles will not merged.--DarkLantern 08:07, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

The merging of The World of Arda and Tolkien with Tolkien Mythology (Voting Closed)
Although well written, I do not believe this article should be a separate one.

I vote to merge it with Tolkien Mythology.--DarkLantern 14:42, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Vote: No, I think you should merge Tolkien Mythology with J.R.R. Tolkien and rename the other article, then merge Eä with it. It would be a shame to let the one article where the creation of Eä is properly described, go to waste.--Nognix 08:42, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * No: Nognix has got the right idea.--Wyvern Rex. 11:01, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * By majority vote, the two articles will remain separate.--DarkLantern 02:57, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Goblin with Orc (Voting closed)
I vote for the merging of Goblin with Orc because they are essentially the same thing.--DarkLantern 16:41, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

I don't. They are not. Goblins are a special breed distint enough to have their own page.--a wiki contributor


 * Yes to merging Moria Orcs with Goblin under the name Goblin. No to merging Orc and Goblin. In Tolkien's books, they are the same but they have diverged in media adaptations.-- Wyvern Rex. Send Carrier Pidgeon|Scroll of Deeds 15:35, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Vote: No. Wyvern Rex has a point.--Nognix 08:42, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Vote: NO.

Thornclaw Far over the Misty Mountains﻿ cold. To dungeons deep and caverns old. 12:10, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * By majority vote, the two articles will remain separate.--DarkLantern 02:57, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Cave-troll and Moria Cave-troll (voting closed)
Motivation: Articles are pretty much telling the same thing. --Nognix 08:57, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue is closed. Moria Cave-troll has no personal name so it has been added to List of unnamed original characters of the books and films. No need to merge.--DarkLantern 08:46, January 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * By majority vote, the two articles will remain separate.--DarkLantern 02:57, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Sauron and Annatar and Necromancer and Lord of the Rings (Title)
Motivation: There are a number of precedents of merging Sauron's pages together. I, of course, refer to the merging of Gorthaur and Sauron on November 5, 2009, the merging of Aulendil and Sauron on July 24, 2009, the merging of Lord of the Earth and Sauron on June 29, 2011, the merging of Artano and Sauron on June 19, 2009.--Nognix 09:49, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Annatar and the Necromancer but I am not sure about The Lord of the Rings (Title). There is the issue of whether to maintain title pages if they only have one who ever held the title.--DarkLantern 10:56, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes to merging all three. I believe that if one individual only held a title, then that title should be mentioned on their page but does not merit a page of its own.--Wyvern Rex. 11:05, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Merged--DarkLantern 20:58, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Olog-hai and Attack Troll (Voting Closed)
Motivation: Merge 'em both, delete the stuff describing the video game stuff and make a separate page for that, all the video game unit articles have separate pages. --Nognix 09:02, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've never heard of Attack Trolls outside of video games. I say keep them separate.--DarkLantern 10:56, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Lantern. The Attack Troll is only in the video games, while the Olog-hai is in, maybe some of them, but mainly only mentioned in the RotK book and in the movie.

Thorn Far over the Misty Mountains﻿ cold. To dungeons deep and caverns old. 12:11, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Majority rules They will remain separate.--DarkLantern 08:55, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Melkor and Bauglir (Voting Closed & Merged)
Motivation: See above (Sauron). --Nognix 12:16, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--DarkLantern 08:46, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I wrote them. I am Farrell. It was my intention to provide a detailed article on Melkor, and another detailed article on Morgoth; in Tolkien's later writings, these are two distinct states of the Diabolus of Middle-earth. He conceived of "the Morgoth" as Melkor's latter condition, when he lost so much power he could no longer change form, and became ever more bound to the earth. In the article Baugilar (which should be titled Morgoth) I presented a detailed account of Morgoth's activities in Beleriand, which would have been cumberous in the main body of the Melkor article. Read the two accounts yourself, now that I have finished them. --James Farrell, Loremaster, January 31st, 2012


 * Comment: Well Loremaster, I'm sure you'll agree if I say Morgoth is a name for Melkor, given by Feanor after Melkor stole the Silmarils (As stated in the Silmarillion). Thus, it's an alias, thus they should be merged since the merging of aliases has been done numerous times before (Sauron and his articles).--Nognix 21:16, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Majority rules They will be merged.--DarkLantern 08:55, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Half-orc, Goblin Men & Orc-men under the ultimate name of Half-orcs (Voting Closed & merged)
Motivation: Although one of the articles state they aren't the same, I think they are. They even have the same picture.--Nognix 00:11, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes: clearly the same.--Wyvern Rex. 11:42, January 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with this and I have added Orc-men to it as well. I believe this is a wise merging because Orc and Man blood make up the bulk of these three so-called races. I vote Yes.--DarkLantern 10:35, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Merged under Half-orcs.--DarkLantern 09:14, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Towers of the Teeth and Teeth of Mordor (Voting Closed & Merged)
Both are the same place. Imposter101 22:37, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--DarkLantern 00:02, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes.--Wyvern Rex. 09:31, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge--Nognix 20:01, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Merged--DarkLantern 09:05, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of English language and Old English language (Voting Closed)
I believe these articles should be merged with Old English language.--DarkLantern 11:36, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Vote: No, as I don't see the point in having a stub article about the English language, go to Wikipedia for that. Delete English language and merge Old English language with Rohirric--Nognix 08:42, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * No: both articles should be replaced with Wikipedia links.--Wyvern Rex. 11:02, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Majority rules. Articles will stay separate.--DarkLantern 03:55, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Pauline Baynes and Miss Pauline Baynes (voting closed and already merged)
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)
 * merged--DarkLantern 13:10, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of The Fell Beasts of the Nazgul and Fell Beast (voting closed)
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)
 * Done--DarkLantern 10:23, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Dol Guldur Mouth and Mouth of Sauron (voting closed)
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)
 * I change my vote. Keep these separate.--DarkLantern 04:02, May 19, 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". Winterz 01:09, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Saruman's staff, Wizard Staff and Gandalf the Grey's Staff of Power under a certain name (voting closed)
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


 * I vote Yes.--DarkLantern 03:46, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

The merging of Evil Eye and Eye of Sauron (voting closed & already merged)
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. Seeems a lot fanon-like to me. When was the eye ever mentioned as a separate creature?! Winterz 01:06, May 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Winterz, "Evil Eye" looks like it was created by someone who just put some information together in a very wrong way. Morgoth&#39;s Ring 19:49, June 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 11:27, July 24, 2012 (UTC)