Tolkien Gateway

Forum:Characters with multiple names

(Difference between revisions)
(Moving Community Portal talk to Council Forum)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="background: #eee; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 5px">'''[[Main Page|Tolkien Gateway]] &gt; [[Forum:Council|Council]] &gt; {{PAGENAME}}'''</div> [[Category:Council]]
+
<div style="background: #eee; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 5px">'''[[Main Page|Tolkien Gateway]]
 
+
 
+
<!-- Start writing after this line -->
+
This is one problem I've had. We have [[Gandalf]], [[Mithrandir]], [[Grey Wanderer]], etc. I think having separate articles for different names is a must, unlike [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] who simply redirects them to one main article. I think we can go into enough detail about the meaning of the name, when the character used the name, etc, to justify an article for it. Another reason I dislike the redirection is because I will go to one article but redirected to another article abd I become confused as to why I am there. ''But'' I do not think content should be spread across multiple articles. For example a ruler of [[Numenor]] should not have their pre-ruling information in say [[Pharazon]] and have anything after they changed their name to [[Ar-Pharazon]] be listed there, it should all be in one article. This being said I think we should vote on a primary article, such as [[Gandalf]] for the information to be stored, and other related naming articles should be linked to from there (and to there). The choice is the difficult decision, especially with say [[Aragorn]], do you use his birth name? ruling name? full name? And then what would his full name be? It was different at different times. Another thing in this same area is we need to go through and make sure a page like [[Gandalf]] has links to all his other names. --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 10:36, 5 March 2006 (EST)
+
 
+
:In my opinion, it's best to put the main article on someone/-thing under the lemma of 'most-named'/'most-(in)famous name'; i.e. the main article on '''Aragorn''' under the lemma [[Aragorn]] with links vice-versa to and from the other names and titles [e.g at the end of the article with a '''See also:''']. The main article on [[Melkor]] could be, likewise, under the lemma [[Morgoth]]. --[[User:Earendilyon|Earendilyon]] 15:33, 5 March 2006 (EST)
+
 
+
:: Hm, in regards to [[Aragorn]] though should we at least specify [[Aragorn II]] since he was technically not the first Aragorn? --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 15:37, 5 March 2006 (EST)
+
 
+
:::But we all do know him as plain 'Aragorn', not as [[Aragorn II]]. If it were up to me, I would transfer the disambiguation on [[Aragorn]] (that is, the part linking to [[Aragorn I]]) to the top of the page on ''the'' Aragorn, and therefore also linking [[Aragorn]] to the article on ''the'' Aragorn (that is, redirecting [[Aragorn]] to [[Aragorn II]]. --[[User:Earendilyon|Earendilyon]] 15:43, 5 March 2006 (EST)
+
 
+
::::Okay I think I agree with you. But I'm a perfectionist so I need to make sure we have exact statistical reasoning behind it. So what we can do to decide what title will be used as the primary content holder, is to count the references used in [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]'s work. Thus [[Aragorn]] is used mainly for [[Aragorn II]] so Aragorn will be the primary content holder. And like you said, place [[Aragorn II]] at the top and we can place other names for him such as [[Strider]], [[Elessar]], etc. at the bottom. I'm content with this solution and will add the Aragorn change to my todo list. As always, thanks for the input. --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 15:50, 5 March 2006 (EST)
+

Revision as of 15:51, 29 May 2007