Talk:Khazad-dûm

Could use some help

I am wanting to merge Moria and Khazad-dum together, but I need your opinions and help remodeling this page. --Dwarf Lord 13:09, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Move

Why can't we move this to Moria? Surely the primary name of the place. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind.--Morgan 14:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If we keep Khazad-dûm as an article about the name Khazad-dûm, I'm in favour of that. --Amroth 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the policy is supposedly that we don't have multiple articles about alternative names for the same thing. So I will be killing either Moria or Khazad-dûm; I'd rather it were Khazad-dûm. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know~one of our goals is to create an article for every name of a character, which includes the etymology of the name and when and by who the name was used. --Amroth 16:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That was the policy (as you can see from the date-stamps that is five years old), but this has subsequently been changed.--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

But have we really decided to make redirects of all "name"-articles? Isn't the consensus more to remove everything but lingustic information from such name-articles?

I feel that the linguistic editing of names, in which I'm often involved, calls for keeping articles on such names for which there is an etymology, evolution, or likewise. Such things would clutter up a main article for a concept which has many names in different languages. Another thing to consider is if such specialized linguistic info should be a part of TG or not, or if we should strive to be more focused on "events"; but since Tolkien was a linguist, and since his whole legendarium perhaps can be said to have evolved from linguistic invention, I think we shouldn't try to move linguistics away from TG.--Morgan 17:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this discussion now because I have debated this to death over the years. This discussion is about where the article on this place is located; what happens to all other names is something for another day. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, I understand. Just wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be a catastrophy if I turned the Khazad-dûm redirect into a linguistic article. ;-) --Morgan 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why can't the Etymology section cover it? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mith here. I don't like multiple articles, even when used as 'linguistic articles'. The whole Silvertine, Caradhras, and Fanuidhol thing is what I'd called a catastrophe! Look: Silvertine, and Celebdil; Caradhras, and Baraz; Fanuidhol, Cloudyhead, Bundushathûr, and Shathûr. It's absurd and confusing, and I just don't like it. Why have eight articles for three things? Also, Mith has brought up a very important question here. I'd actually prefer that Moria redirected to Khazad-dûm (and, incidentally, there's Hadhodrond too). -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  17:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to continue this discussion here (it should actually be continued on a forum), but where was it decided that we should make redirects of etymology/naming articles? I can't find any forum where it was discussed (except the one I mentioned earlier) nor can I find it in the policy articles. --Amroth 18:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To take a step further back: Ederchil has many thoughts on Talk:Moria. Since these thoughts are three years old, would it be okay with Ederchil to kill the Khazad-dûm article?

And, in order to proceed (without getting to caught in larger discussions), how do we deal with the name/etymology isse? I'll make a quick suggestion in this article, which easily can be moved if we make "Moria" the main article later.--Morgan 21:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There are further Forum discussions here, here and here, but they seem not to be much more recent than the one already mentioned. I also don’t see that they have actually settled the question. So I’m with Morgan here. I do also think that the main article should be under Moria. As to more general policy, I’ll give my considerations on that as and where a discussion on principles is reopened. — Mithrennaith 06:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression we had resolved this in a meeting but, admittedly, I can find no record of it (not that that means it never happened!); I've added it to the next meeting as an issue to be clarified. Are we safe to move this to Moria now? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)