Talk:Minor places in Arda

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-10-26. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Name

is "miscellaeneous" really needed? in addition i will correct it's misspelled its supposed to be "miscellaneous". then we would need to remake. If remake then take out "misc." because Minor places in Middle-earth‎ does not have that word. and User:Dan crook54 said in talk for Minor places in Middle-earth created this article as a parallel. If i don't get reply i will take action and remake with different name. Same stuff otherwise though. Ran da l l l in 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i have not been active recently. The reason i put miscellaneous was that they were places what could not be defined as part the continents of Middle-Earth and Aman. (see Minor places in Middle-earth and Minor places in Beleriand). Also now those 2 lists mentioned in brackets would logically come under this renamed article. What do u propose? Making one Article and include minor places of Middle-Earth(3rd age), Beleriand, Misc and perhaps Aman? Im sure it was mentioned merging them anyway on portal talk or somewhere. le Dan 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent merges; GFDL violation

The recent merges do not preserve the history of the pages, and as such are a GFDL violation. An admin should do an history merge. Bryan 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles content has been merged from is mentioned, if not always linked. That should be sufficient. The history is at the redirect pages. This is a standard way to do merges, and although it does not technically preserve the GFDL, is standard practice on Wikipedia. History merges are only really possible if the dates are out of sequence. If they overlap, merging histories is misleading. Carcharoth 23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]