Now, this is very annoying and time consuming, but I have merged quite a lot of articles which have been flagged for a very long amount of time. Why have they been left? —Unsigned comment by Reallyfat (talk • contribs).
- Most probably because it's time-consuming (as you mention).--Morgan 10:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've held off as I still hope someday to have articles for every Quenya, Sindarin, etc. word, and if that's the case most of the merge candidates become worth keeping. But I think I'm on my own with that opinion :) --Hyarion 03:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I too have the same wish. I think it would be great if we had an article for each of the words in Morgan's dictionaries. But we don't need to keep the merge candidates. Whenever I merge
articles, I make sure that if the article has any one piece of etymological information, that piece of information is retained. So the articles for different words can just link to the etymology section of merged articles (where applicable).--Reallyfat Trollion 10:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've also supported the existence of separate articles for each Etymologically interesting name. For example, I would not condone the merging of Dwimordene and Lothlorien, as the former is an OE name with its own etymology, not even a translation. For this reason I would never proceed to merging these or other articles. On the other hand TG doesn't express any clear preference about creating or retaining etymological articles; if a user put there a merge tag, none has the authority to remove it simply because he disagrees. I feel that most users felt like this, so the merging process remained in limbo. I am still not sure if the right thing was done. Sage 13:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hyarion: No, I don't think you're on your own with that opinion. :-) However, what we did was to debate quite a lot if we should merge the "same-concept" articles, like the Dwimordene/Lothlórien case mentioned by Sage (which eventually was decided in a meeting, IIRC). I'm personally not convinced that articles such as "Gandalf/Names" is better than having separate articles for the different names.--Morgan 22:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)