Wikia

The One Wiki to Rule Them All

Articles to be merged

Forum page

5,968pages on
this wiki

Articles in QuestionEdit

The merging of Guldur Olog-hai and Gundabad War TrollEdit

I believe they are the same thing. Guldur Olog-hai was the original article though so can we delete the other?

NO the other troll is a different species, the gundabad war troll is at least 30 feet tall, the guldur olog hai only about 12 feet tall, plus the guldur olog hai may not even be olog hai, there is no definition of what kind of trolls were in the battle of the five armies, hence why the gundabad troll was called a "war troll", and not a cave or hill troll, merging the articles has already caused confusion stating false facts since each troll was different, the only reason the people here would think to merge the articles would be that the trolls look too similar (in terms of armor) but on that notion the larger trolls had some less-armored variants, these two articles should be reverted back


The merging of Eye of Sauron with SauronEdit

I would think my reasons pretty self-explanatory but I will state them anyway: The eye of Sauron is simply a symbol for Sauron (and in the movies a shape of Sauron) but I do not think that it would warrant a page of it's own. Caspoi (talk) 22:53, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

NO. The Eye of Sauron is just a symbol of Sauron but that does not mean it needs to be combined with Sauron I completely agree with the person above me it doesn't really need to be two pages but neither does it need to be one, so in my opinion it should stay as two

So it doesn't need to be two pages but you think they should stay separate because there is to much work merging them? At any rate if the article would be kept then it should at least be renamed into "The Red Eye", which is its actual term in the books/movies, among many things. The arguments for removing the article could also apply to The Hand of Saruman, and this too might fit to be renamed into "The White Hand". Caspoi (talk) 20:05, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
I vote stay separate. Not everything related to a character(s) needs to merged with them.--DarkLantern (talk) 20:42, March 2, 2015 (UTC)

I have had a change of mind regarding this, partially because I slightly missunderstood the context of the article "eye of Sauron". My major objection is that if one symbol or banner etc. gain an article then must not all symbols, banners etc. gain articles? I still also think that the red eye is a much better title. Caspoi (talk) 00:03, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

The merging of Black Uruk and Uruk-haiEdit

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 yes however, the Uruk-hai article only talks about Saruman's Uruks and needs some serious work, considering that the Black Uruks came first. Winterz (talk) 14:31, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
No. Uruk-hai are black uruks that were altered by Saruman, so they're two different species. Jeff (talk|stalk) 15:33, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
I vote No. Black Uruks served Mordor, whereas Uruk- Hai served Isengard.Bolg, son of Azog (talk) 20:19, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
No. From my source (http://www.thelandofshadow.com/ ) it repeatedly mentions that these Uruks weren't ordinary, they were of Barad-Dur. So, in my opinion, REGULAR Uruk-hai like those of Isengard and the lesser of Mordor, should not be merged with this page. Saurons man 8:53, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
No.' Black Uruks were from Mordor, the Uruk-Hai were Saruman's creations. Jeff (talk|stalk) 20:45, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
I definitively and decisively vote No. They are both Uruks, but they are two different breeds. However, both pages could still use quite a bit of work. Gen. Grievous1138 (talk) 22:02, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
Merge. The Uruks of Mordor are actually referred to as Uruk-Hai in the books and there is no use of the word "Black Uruks" there as far as I am concerned. Uruk-Hai Means Uruk-people or orc-people, not Uruks of Saruman. Another thing: always use the book as a reference or create a non-canon page specifically. Caspoi (talk) 17:00, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
Admittedly I have found one reference of black Uruks in the Fellowship of the Ring in the mines of Moria but that was without a capital letter, as shown here, indicating that it was a description of their looks rather than a part of their name and the fact remains that Sarumans Uruks are commonly referred as the "Isengarders". Caspoi (talk) 17:45, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
I vote No. I think although Black Uruks are a kind of Uruk-hai, there are quite a lot of differences between them. For example, Black Uruks are better warriors, and Black Uruks joined different events with the normal Uruk-hais, for example the Battle of Cirith Ungol, Gorbag and Shagrat are different, and indeed Black Uruks(Shagrat) are captain of Uruk-hais, sharing a different status. So I think the two pages shouldn't be merged.--Prince of Erebor(talk)
The section entitled The Stewards in Appendix A mentions this exactly about the matter the race of uruks, black uruks of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor. Now the author may have been talking about an earlier breed of Uruk or it simply may be that he was referring to them as 'black uruks of great strength' as a way of conveying 'fright'.--DarkLantern (talk) 04:55, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
Like the Orcs and Goblins thing, we must get this settled it is utterly ridiculous that the matter should be held up for over two years.--DarkLantern (talk) 04:55, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Merge: I second User:DarkLantern's motion. These pages should be merged as soon as possible, as this has been a conflict for years already. Darkchylde (talkcontribs) 05:19,2/14/2015

The merging of Goblins with OrcsEdit

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)
No, because the Goblins have achieved a certain notability and deserve their own article considering the large information on them (which differs from overall Orc info), regardless of them being the same species. Winterz (talk) 14:32, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Do Not Merge: Although Tolkien generally used the terms 'goblin' and 'orc' interchangeably, there are enough distinctions in Tolkien's books, and far more in other adaptations (the Battle of Middle Earth games consider goblins and orcs to be 2 different species) to warrant having separate articles. Jeff (talk|stalk) 15:25, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
There should be only Uruk-hai NOT Black uruks. What evidence of races within Uruks is there?--DarkLantern (talk) 05:52, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
Merge: Tolkien explains explicitly clearly many times that goblin is simply the English counterpart for the word Orc. He makes no distinctions between the two at all, and uses them interchangeably. The goblin page is nothing but a smaller version of the Orc page, and is redundant to the wikia. The pages should be merged. -Areades (talk) 22:40, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
Merge. Any differences between Orcs and goblins can be discussed in a special section on the merged page. Keep in mind also that Tolkien is the authority on this subject- not Peter Jackson.
Merge. One could simply have a "Goblins in the New Line Cinema" with a "NonCanon" template but if we are to keep true to Tolkien's works, which we should, there is no separate group of goblins different from other

Orcs. Caspoi (talk) 16:40, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

No. Tolkien may have used both Goblin and Orc to describe the same group of creature. It should be noted that Tolkien thought of them as the same and also noted that in Peter Jackson's not fully cannon works Goblins appear to be different to Orcs. It should explicitly say that Tolkien's Orcs and Goblins may have been the same in the books but differ in other non cannon works. It also seems that the word Goblin is used in current citations and for some Orcs who live outside of Mordor, As far as I know it appears in Tolkien's earlier works Goblins and Orcs were separate but as his works continued he seems to mix them together and eventually state that goblin is the English word for Orc. So Tolkien had some dispute to whether he would mix Orcs and Goblins or not until later on in his works
Merge: I think Goblins and Orcs are the same in the books, so there is no need two pages for the same topic, although goblins in the movie is different from Orcs. But I think these can be solve by listing their differences in the Portrayal in adaptations section. ---Prince of Erebor-(Reply Press Here)
Merge: It is utterly ridiculous that this matter should be held in council for over two years. 'Goblins' is just another name for Orcs! I have looked it up in two different sources: the index in the back of my The Lord of the Rings and the entry 'Goblins' refers you to Orcs and in my copy of The Complete Guide to Middle-earth it does the same thing refers you to 'Orcs'. I've always respected the voting procedure well but in this case the canon truth overrules the majority. Unless anyone has any other canon book information to refute this, I may just or maybe I will just merge it myself ending this debate once and for all.--DarkLantern (talk) 04:55, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
I guess it is partly my fault for not offering my sources up earlier and being a bit divided between respecting the majority voting and to the truth. I was also waiting for a competent editor to merge properly. This is soon going to dealt with and the matter closed permanently.--DarkLantern (talk) 04:55, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
I agree Dark Lantern, but I don't agree to merge black uruks and uruk-hais though. Well, I may help in merging the Goblins and Orcs pages if you want. ---Prince of Erebor-(Reply Press Here)
Merge: I second User:DarkLantern's motion. These pages should be merged as soon as possible, as this has been a conflict for years already. Darkchylde (talkcontribs) 05:20,2/14/2015
Merge: If I understand Gradivus findings right, Tolkien then preferred 'Orcs' over 'Goblins' and thus the term became the most widely known name for them. This wiki uses the most popular and widely known whether or not it is English-sounding or English. This wiki being book first also does not rely on movie or other adaptations to found its canon materials either, meaning just because the movies or games imply something enough does mean it will become the truth. I still say, prefer, and vote for Orcs as the name. I vote merge.--DarkLantern (talk) 17:22, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Glorfindel and Glorfindel of GondolinEdit

(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. [[1]]

  • So what is your point? You're the only one nominating it be merged. Anyway, this is to vote to merge articles, not to discuss their subjects (that's in the Talk page or Forum).
  • Keep Both - two different characters should have two different articles. Jeff (talk|stalk) 15:33, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Both - what's wrong with Glorfindel of Rivendell's parents naming their kid after a mighty warrior of Gondolin?Bolg, son of Azog (talk) 20:24, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although I personally believe the two to be somehow the same person, there is no proof of this. The characters have been completely separate and lived two entirely different lives in different times. Areades (talk) 06:20, July 15, 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Whether you believe they're the same person or not, it's clearly not obvious, so I don't think we should merge unless something surfaces proving that they are one and the same. --Readingrancor11 (talk) 17:40, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Until we know for sure (which we probably never will) that they are one and the same it is best to keep them. I for one do believe that they are one and the same but I must not necessarily be in the right. Caspoi (talk) 16:51, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Well, there are no proofs or canon sources which can proof that the 2 Glorfindel are the same. So better to have 2 separate articles.----Prince of Erebor(talk)
  • Merge - Other sources, such as Wikipedia and Tolkien Gateway, acknowledge that Glorfindel of Rivendell and Glorfindel of Gondolin are one and the same. So why not One Wiki to Rule Them All as well? If you read The History of Middle-earth: The Last Writings, there is a statement that supports this:
"He then became again a living incarnate person, but was permitted to dwell in the Blessed Realm; for he had regained the primitive innocence and grace of the Eldar. For long years he remained in Valinor, in reunion with the Eldar who had not rebelled, and in the companionship of the Maiar. To these he had now become almost an equal, for though he was an incarnate (to whom a bodily form not made or chosen by himself was necessary) his spiritual power had been greatly enhanced by his self-sacrifice."
JRR Tolkien, Last Writings, Glorfindel II
There is even a further discussion which asks, "When did Glorfindel return to Middle-earth?", and long paragraphs venture on each possibility. Darkchylde (talkcontribs) 13:26,2/7/2015
...Very notable is "Glorfindel tells of his ancestry in Gondolin". Years later, long after the publication of The Lord of the Rings, my father gave a great deal of thought to the matter of Glorfindel, and at that time he wrote: "[The use of Glorfindel] in The Lord of the Rings is one of the cases of the somewhat random use of the names found in the older legends, now referred to as the The Silmarillion, which escaped reconsideration in the final published form of The Lord of the Rings." He came to the conclusion that Glorfindel of Gondolin, who fell to his death in combat with a Balrog after the sack of the city (II. 192-4, IV.145), and Glorfindel of Rivendell were one and the same: he was released from Mandos and returned to Middle-earth in the Second Age.
- The Return of the Shadow, "At Rivendell"
I added yet another evidence (or reference) regarding his re-embodiment. Just like Goblins and Orcs, it is utterly ridiculous that we cannot come into a conclusion when evidences exist.  - Darkchylde  Talk  Contribs 05:53,3/7/2015

Silvan Elves and Wood-elvesEdit

These articles have been nominated for merging long before I became an admin. I am surprised it has a {{Merge}} tag on one article, but has no open discussion here in the forum. As for myself, I vote on merging these two articles, as they are basically the same thing, only that one is in Elvish name and the other is in the Westron translation. Also, with The Hobbit films being such a massive hit, the article should be thoroughly updated and cleaned-up. Your thoughts?  - Darkchylde  Talk  Contribs 16:06,3/9/2015

Agreed, there is no such group of elves as the wood elves, unless you are to apply the definition to all elves who happen to live in a wood. Caspoi (talk) 15:53, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

ArchiveEdit

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki