Talk:Durin's Folk

I've got a couple of things I'd like to ask people about:

1) Shouldn't this be Durin's Folk? I've just flicked through my Appendix A and although Tolkien isn't consistent - in my copy (this might've been ironed out in the 50th) - he uses "Durin's Folk" six times compared to "Durin's folk" once. He also mentions the "Folk of Durin" too. It'd also be consistent with the following...

2) (This should probably go over with Kings of Durin's Folk but I'm putting it here because it's related and I don't want to clutter up Recent Changes with lots of Talk page rubbish.) "Durin's line" redirects to "Kings of Durin's Folk". I know this is a bit pedantic but the line includes all the non-kings (Gimli, Fili, etc. etc.) so shouldn't they be separate and include the family-tree currently in my sandbox? In fact, we could create "House of Durin" and redirect "Durin's line" to that?

3) I also think there's unnecessary overlap between this article and "Kings of Durin's Folk" in that they both repeat the line of Kings. Both slightly messily and clumsily, admittedly.

Any objections to my making these changes? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

+1. "Durin's Folk" looks much better to me.--Morgan 18:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be "Durin's Folk", and describe the third part of Appendix A, rather than being a duplicate of the Kings article. --Ederchil ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edits)} 18:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)