Talk:Kondha

Merger proposal
Plainly, there is no reason to have two articles on one indigeneous tribe. While the other article offers references and formating, the prevailing usage for the tribal name seems to be without the "s" on the end. Therefore, it makes sense to merge "Dongria Kondhs" into "Dongria Kohnd". Meanwhile, I hope that the information on this page can be properly sourced and have requested that the author do so. --Moonriddengirl 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be nothing in this article that isn't in Kondha (although that too needs to be referenced appropriately). I suggest merging the two smaller articles into Kondha. --Mkativerata 12:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I had no idea there were three. --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. I've changed the mergers to reflect the new page. I do hope there isn't a fourth. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge complete. Since the destination talk page was empty, I am replacing it with this one. --Moonriddengirl 12:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like there was a fourth, missed in the above 2007 discussion (page created 2006): Khonds. This was tagged in 2014, but there seems to have been no action since then. The case seems clear, and as above; perhaps Moonriddengirl is still in the mood, even after a decade? Otherwise, I'm sure that anyone else can do it too. Klbrain (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be merged. And Khonds is more extensive than this article, so does that mean merging this article into that one, or is it a question of which article title is best? Batternut (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone with Khonds for the reasons you suggest, but don't have a strong view. So, ✅ Klbrain (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)