Tolkien Gateway

Forum:Redirecting secondary names

Revision as of 09:55, 2 January 2012 by Amroth (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Tolkien Gateway > Forums > Redirecting secondary names


It was agreed at the 7 August 2011 meeting (indeed this was also agreed at the 3 July 2011 meeting but no action was taken) that we should conduct this discussion here. Should we have one article per concept, redirecting all secondary names to one article? Or should we continue to have many articles for the same concept, and, if so, what guidelines should be in place? -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 to redirecting. We might have sections dealing to specific names (for example, Strider and Thorongil on Aragorn's page). If it's just the name in another language, we should redirect to the best known name (arbitrary, I know). --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
+1 on redirecting also. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
+1 on redirecting. As Ederchil says, the choice may be arbitrary but it's better than two or more articles on the same subject, which often contain or omit different information. --Gamling 21:10, 6 Sept. 2011 (UTC)
I think we should keep articles about Sindarin/Quenya/etc. names, these articles should be about linguistics (etymology and evolution of the name). The main articles should contain all other information.
Also, could the linguistics (like Morgan, Sage) give their opinion on this matter. Since this is partly a linguistic subject. --Amroth 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
+1 on redirecting. Amroth, please explain why we should remove (or perhaps even duplicate!) Sindarin and Quenya information from the main article. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  19:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The reasons why I think we should keep the current situation are:
  1. If someone searches Alatáriel he would likely want to know about the etymology of that name and not about the history of Galadriel.
  2. Since we have articles on Sindarin and Quenya words I think we should also keep Sindarin and Quenya names. These articles could have information about the etymology, evolution, etc. and could, like Morgan says in Talk:Khazad-dûm, could clutter up the main article.
  3. Like Mithrennaith said in the meeting of 3 July, articles would have a different style (e.g. the style of the main information and the dictionary-style in the etymology-section). --Amroth 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I've sort of wanted to stay neutral in this debate, but I'd go for a compromise. If a majority wants to merge all "same-concept" names, that's fine for me - under the conditions:
  1. that we keep the redirected names in their proper categories (like Cat:Quenya names, etc). Otherwise we might as well dispose of the language-name categories altogether.
  2. that the redirected name is redirected to the proper section in the main article (i.e., "Other names" or "Names"). If this is not the case, we are doing the wiki reader a disfavour: as Amroth pointed out above (1), we don't want a reader having to search in a long article for info about a name (in the same manner as we don't a reader to be confused about which is the main article about a certain concept). --Morgan 17:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Amroth, where is your evidence for #1? Why wouldn't redirecting to the appropriate section of Galadriel be appropriate? I don't understand how anything regarding Galadriel would "clutter up" the page - you'll have to explain this to me. #3 is a whole different ballpark! Would information be duplicated (i.e. appear on both the etymology page and the main page)? Would the main article simply link to the etymology page? What if there are multiple etymology pages? How would readers know that they were reading an etymology page and not the main article?
Morgan, I agree that we should keep the Quenya and Sindarin name redirects in categories. I also agree that they should redirect to the appropriate section of the page. However I do not agree that long articles are confusing to the reader; in my opinion we layout our articles in a very user-friendly way and as an encyclopaedia we should keep all information on each concept on the same page. Furthermore, and this is the most important point, it would be MORE confusing if some of the information was on a completely different page! -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  20:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
KA: Let's not disagree about something which haven't been said! ;-) I didn't say above that long articles must be confusing to the reader; what I did say was that if a reader searches for, let's say, a rare name for Galadriel, they are most likely wanting to know what this name means. If they only end up at the top of the Galadriel page, it is quite a task to locate the appropriate section (unless one is familiar with our article structure). So, as you also support "redirecting to the appropriate section" (and as probably no one is likely to differ), there's nothing to disagree about here.--Morgan 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

One difficulty with the "same concept=one article" are the articles which have a collective name, like the Two Lamps and the Two Trees. Right now, most info on the subject can often be found on the "collective" article, so it would be kind of logical to redirect the individual articles to their respective collective article.--Morgan 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We did debate this at some point. Was it in a meeting? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Was it here Talk:Two Trees of Valinor ? Can't recall any other place.--Morgan 20:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
We will get cases where we can't simply have one article per concept. Considering that the history of the two trees is a shared one, I think that Two Trees of Valinor should be the main article, whilst Telperion and Laurelin should include information specific to them, as far as possible. The same goes for the Two Lamps.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  13:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: In the 4 December 2011 meeting it was agreed, that a final decission about the secondary names will be made before 1 January. --Amroth 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have the transcript for that meeting?-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  21:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should look to articles by case-by-case. Articles with much information, and especially those that lead to problems (Láthspell), should be an own article, while articles with few information (Stormcorw) should be merged with the main article, in this case Gandalf. If we decide to merge all articles with the main article, we should redirect to appropriate header and certainly to the correct page.

I suggest we postpone the decission with one week, so others have the possibility to respond.

BTW: Happy Newyear! --Amroth 16:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

People have had a month to respond, and have chosen not to.
I stand by my vote above to redirect secondary names. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
People, who didn't attend at the 4 December meeting, couldn't have known that a decission would be made on/before 1 January, at least they couldn't know that before the 28th.
However I doubt any of the editors, who haven't posted here before, will respond if we postpone the decission with one week. So it might be better we don't postpone it. I think we should discuss now, how exactly we're going to redirect. Should we redirect to the main article, the appropriate header, the subpage or the appropriate header in the subpage?
I think we should redirect to the appropriate header, or in the case of Gandalf/Names to the appropriate header of Gandlaf/Names. I think we all agreed, that 95% of the people who search for Láthspell want to know about the name, not about general information of Gandalf. So we shouldn't redirect the readers to the wrong page (Gandalf), while the information they probally want to read is on Gandalf/Names.
I also think only the names with much information should be moved to a subpage, Gandalf Greyhame doesn't deserve an own header (unless more information is added). --Amroth 15:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
In some cases, disambiguation is needed when we merge articles on names - I tried something here, but it doesn't look very nice..?--Morgan 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look that bad. Though, pages like Aragorn would need 3 disambiguation templates (Strider, Elessar and Telcontar). Which would be to much. --Amroth 09:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)