Talk:Oathbreakers: Difference between revisions

From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 19 June 2011 by Ederchil
m (Statistics on mentions within TLOTR)
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:


:::For the record, there are ten mentions of "The Dead", four mentions of "Dead Men", one mention of "Dead Men of Dunharrow" and only two mentions of Oathbreakers. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 18:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
:::For the record, there are ten mentions of "The Dead", four mentions of "Dead Men", one mention of "Dead Men of Dunharrow" and only two mentions of Oathbreakers. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 18:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
::::I think that, for search engine optimalization, Dead Men of Dunharrow is the best choice, even if it only appears once. It's the best known name as far as I know. -- {{User:Ederchil/sig}} 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:45, 19 June 2011

Now, here's a definite case of ambiguity. If you look at what links here we get this:

The Dead 3
Oathbreakers 6
Army of the Dead 8
Dead Men 8
Dead Men of Dunharrow 9

I don't really know, however, which of these is the best option, though. I think Army of the Dead is the most common, but I'm not really sure. Is this article best left where it is or should it be moved; if so, where to? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BUMP!- -Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personallly think we should keep it at Oathbreakers, I think it's most used (if excluding the Army of the Dead). Army of the Dead is (almost) only used in adaptations. --Amroth 18:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, there are ten mentions of "The Dead", four mentions of "Dead Men", one mention of "Dead Men of Dunharrow" and only two mentions of Oathbreakers. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that, for search engine optimalization, Dead Men of Dunharrow is the best choice, even if it only appears once. It's the best known name as far as I know. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]