Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Zigil-nâd

Delete? This name was obviously scrapped. -- Ederchil 11:16, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I'd rather say: put a non-canon marker in the article. ~ Earendilyon 11:38, 16 January 2008 (EST)
It's non-canon, but it is completely ridiculous to give this its own entry. Should all scrapped names from HoMe have an own entry? -- Ederchil 12:44, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I don't know whether there's already some policy formulated on this point. ~ Earendilyon 13:07, 16 January 2008 (EST)
There's already some discussion on a similar issue @ Forum:Multiple title redirects. ~ Earendilyon 13:10, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I might be alone but I think even the non-canon subjects should have their own article, like Trotter. We can expand on the etymology of the name, why Tolkien chose it, why it was discarded, where it is mentioned, etc. Though, we should clearly label it as being superseded by later works. I suppose if the name was pretty similar to the new title we could include them both in the same article however. --Hyarion 21:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Trotter had a history. Zigil-nâd is just a word... -- Ederchil 04:23, 17 January 2008 (EST)