The One Wiki to Rule Them All

Articles to be merged

Forum page

6,142pages on
this wiki
Add New Page

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 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 ( ) 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)

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)

Elves and Elf childrenEdit

First and foremost, what is the difference? I know the latter articles discusses about love and marriage lives of Elves, so why not just merge it to the main Elves article, but put it under a separate section? I propose that under the characteristics section, we merge the article and name it as "Lives and Customs of the Eldar", like in Tolkien Gateway.  - Darkchylde  Talk  Contribs  17:32,1/5/2016

I vote Yes--DarkLantern (talk) 01:57, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

"Oliphants" and "Mûmakil" Edit

The articles Oliphants and Mûmakil deal the same subject. They even refer to each other with expressions such as "known more familiarly as" and "better known as".

I don't see the point in keeping them both. Compared to "Mûmakil", "Oliphants" is just a stub.

--Weas-El (talk) 14:42, February 25, 2017 (UTC)

Move request: "Ithilien (Gondor)" back to "Ithilien" Edit

That page was moved according to move log with the following reason: "Because it's the name of a folk metal band too". So what? This wiki is not about folk metal bands. I request moving it back to the original lemma.

Sorry, if this request is misplaced. I didn't find a better place for it. --Weas-El (talk) 15:55, February 25, 2017 (UTC)

Merges settled/deniedEdit

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)


Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.