Tolkien Gateway

Forum:Proposed article renamings

(Difference between revisions)
m (Reverted edits by Mithbot (Talk) to last revision by Mith)
m (Bot Message: changing link to Aragorn)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
Especially since I don't have higher user priveleges and this is a wiki of multiple users, I'm posting this to seek consensus on an issue.
 
Especially since I don't have higher user priveleges and this is a wiki of multiple users, I'm posting this to seek consensus on an issue.
 
*I think the primary article for Melkor should be at [[Melkor]] and not [[Morgoth]].  True, he is primarily known as Morgoth during the events in Beleriand in the First Age (it's the epithet [[Fëanor]] gave him during that age), but he is primarily referred to as Melkor in other eras.  Even as the [[King's Men]] in [[Númenor]] gain more dominance, don't they worship ''Melkor'' instead of ''Morgoth'', since it's the name [[Sauron]] preferred to call him?  ''Melkor'' means "mighty", and ''Morgoth'' means "black enemy", afterall, and Melkor was certainly not Sauron's enemy.  Also, I seem to recall [[Dagor Dagorath]] details referring to him mainly as ''Melkor''—once again, ''Morgoth'' is primarily a Fëanor-era name.  In the long run scheme of things (in terms of the story's timeline), ''Melkor'' seems the more meaningful name. - [[User:Gilgamesh|Gilgamesh]] 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 
*I think the primary article for Melkor should be at [[Melkor]] and not [[Morgoth]].  True, he is primarily known as Morgoth during the events in Beleriand in the First Age (it's the epithet [[Fëanor]] gave him during that age), but he is primarily referred to as Melkor in other eras.  Even as the [[King's Men]] in [[Númenor]] gain more dominance, don't they worship ''Melkor'' instead of ''Morgoth'', since it's the name [[Sauron]] preferred to call him?  ''Melkor'' means "mighty", and ''Morgoth'' means "black enemy", afterall, and Melkor was certainly not Sauron's enemy.  Also, I seem to recall [[Dagor Dagorath]] details referring to him mainly as ''Melkor''—once again, ''Morgoth'' is primarily a Fëanor-era name.  In the long run scheme of things (in terms of the story's timeline), ''Melkor'' seems the more meaningful name. - [[User:Gilgamesh|Gilgamesh]] 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
*I think [[Aragorn II]] should instead be [[Aragorn Elessar]].  He was ''Aragorn II'', but as a [[Chieftain of the Dúnedain]].  When he assumed his greater role, he became ''Elessar''.  But of course we can't forget he is also ''Aragorn'', and I've seen the name ''Aragorn Elessar'' around.  Bad idea?
+
*I think [[Aragorn|Aragorn II]] should instead be [[Aragorn Elessar]].  He was ''Aragorn II'', but as a [[Chieftain of the Dúnedain]].  When he assumed his greater role, he became ''Elessar''.  But of course we can't forget he is also ''Aragorn'', and I've seen the name ''Aragorn Elessar'' around.  Bad idea?
 
That's all I can think of for the time being. - [[User:Gilgamesh|Gilgamesh]] 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 
That's all I can think of for the time being. - [[User:Gilgamesh|Gilgamesh]] 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
*I wouldn’t object to moving [[Morgoth]] to [[Melkor]], but neither am I strongly in favour. After all, it is as ''Morgoth'' that he plays the role that he is best known for in the Legendarium: that of the original Dark Lord of the First Era.
 
*I wouldn’t object to moving [[Morgoth]] to [[Melkor]], but neither am I strongly in favour. After all, it is as ''Morgoth'' that he plays the role that he is best known for in the Legendarium: that of the original Dark Lord of the First Era.
*On [[Aragorn II]] I agree completely with Ederchil. The idea ''Aragorn Elessar'' is a useable, let alone acceptable, name betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the linguistic sensitivities of the man who once said he wrote ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' to create a world in which ''elen síla lumenn’ omentielvo'' was a common form of greeting.
+
*On [[Aragorn|Aragorn II]] I agree completely with Ederchil. The idea ''Aragorn Elessar'' is a useable, let alone acceptable, name betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the linguistic sensitivities of the man who once said he wrote ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' to create a world in which ''elen síla lumenn’ omentielvo'' was a common form of greeting.
 
: -- [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 01:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 
: -- [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 01:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  

Revision as of 17:44, 10 January 2011

Tolkien Gateway > Council > Proposed article renamings

Especially since I don't have higher user priveleges and this is a wiki of multiple users, I'm posting this to seek consensus on an issue.

  • I think the primary article for Melkor should be at Melkor and not Morgoth. True, he is primarily known as Morgoth during the events in Beleriand in the First Age (it's the epithet Fëanor gave him during that age), but he is primarily referred to as Melkor in other eras. Even as the King's Men in Númenor gain more dominance, don't they worship Melkor instead of Morgoth, since it's the name Sauron preferred to call him? Melkor means "mighty", and Morgoth means "black enemy", afterall, and Melkor was certainly not Sauron's enemy. Also, I seem to recall Dagor Dagorath details referring to him mainly as Melkor—once again, Morgoth is primarily a Fëanor-era name. In the long run scheme of things (in terms of the story's timeline), Melkor seems the more meaningful name. - Gilgamesh 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Aragorn II should instead be Aragorn Elessar. He was Aragorn II, but as a Chieftain of the Dúnedain. When he assumed his greater role, he became Elessar. But of course we can't forget he is also Aragorn, and I've seen the name Aragorn Elessar around. Bad idea?

That's all I can think of for the time being. - Gilgamesh 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree on the first.
Disagree on the second. Neither "Aragorn Elessar", nor its full Sindarin form "Aragorn Edhelharn", was ever used in Tolkien's works. I wouldn't mind making it "Aragorn", though. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the Morgoth/Melkor switch, but Aragorn should just be "Aragorn." --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I wouldn’t object to moving Morgoth to Melkor, but neither am I strongly in favour. After all, it is as Morgoth that he plays the role that he is best known for in the Legendarium: that of the original Dark Lord of the First Era.
  • On Aragorn II I agree completely with Ederchil. The idea Aragorn Elessar is a useable, let alone acceptable, name betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the linguistic sensitivities of the man who once said he wrote The Lord of the Rings to create a world in which elen síla lumenn’ omentielvo was a common form of greeting.
-- Mithrennaith 01:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I drop my proposal for Aragorn Elessar. I still think Melkor should be a more primary article than Morgoth. And yes, considering I've been doing heavy linguistic edits on the sites, I entirely appreciate the irony of "Aragorn Elessar". It would either have to be "Aracorno Elessar" or "Aragorn Edhelharn", but none of these terms has common use. Then again, there is "Elessar (character)"...but that would gloss over that his original name was always Aragorn. I'll just let that particular issue be for now. - Gilgamesh 02:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, on a totally unrelated matter, has anyone seen what I did with Tolkien Gateway:Userboxes? I created some new ones too. - Gilgamesh 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for adding my "This user thinks the Evil guys are bad" userbox; I always thought it was a good one --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I added every userbox that I saw listed in the category. - Gilgamesh 05:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So, back to the main issue. Do we have consensus on Melkor? - Gilgamesh 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I personally think all articles should be listed on the name most commonly used by the general public - it makes it easier for people to find the articles that way. Aragorn should be "Aragorn" I think, and, similarly, Melkor should be on "Morgoth" because that's the name most people use. It does annoy me that I type in "Frodo" and get redirected to "Frodo Baggins", for instance: we all know that when someone is looking for, e.g., "Frodo", "Aragorn", "Arwen", "Morgoth" etc. etc. they are looking for Frodo Baggins, Aragorn II Elessar, Arwen Evenstar, and Melkor so why not just have the full articles located in "Frodo", "Aragorn", "Arwen" and "Morgoth" instead?
Furthermore, it also stop re-directs inside the wiki (e.g. look at how many of the links to Arwen Evenstar go via Arwen: Special:WhatLinksHere/Arwen_Evenstar). By the way, Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia of Arda, Tuckborough, Everything2 all seem to follow my suggestions on linking articles, but the OneWiki follows Gilgamesh's proposal. The Tolkien Wiki is 50/50. All of them link direct to "Frodo Baggins", so I am willing to concede the point on that.
I know I'm swimming against the tide on this one, though. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Been bold here, because I partially agree with Mith. Arwen, Gimli, Boromir, Faramir were needlessly disambiguated. I left Aragorn II alone because of the surrent discussion (though I favour moving it to "Aragorn"). On Melkor/Morgoth, I favour Morgoth. On Frodo, I prefer it if we kept the surname. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)