Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Stone of Erech

(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "The article on "Erech" already covers the Stone of Erech in full detail. The present "Stone of Erech" article is copied directly from the Encyclopedia of Arda, but to replac...")
 
m (Merge here)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The article on "[[Erech]]" already covers the Stone of Erech in full detail.  The present "Stone of Erech" article is copied directly from the Encyclopedia of Arda, but to replace it would simply be a repeat of the information in the Erech article.  I suggest that the "Stone of Erech" be changed into a redirect to "Erech" and the Stone of Erech image be incorporated into that article.  This would combine a location (the hill) with an object/monument (the stone) but they are so synonymous that having two articles seems superfluous. --[[User:Gamling|Gamling]] 23:54, 28 Oct 2012 (UTC)
 
The article on "[[Erech]]" already covers the Stone of Erech in full detail.  The present "Stone of Erech" article is copied directly from the Encyclopedia of Arda, but to replace it would simply be a repeat of the information in the Erech article.  I suggest that the "Stone of Erech" be changed into a redirect to "Erech" and the Stone of Erech image be incorporated into that article.  This would combine a location (the hill) with an object/monument (the stone) but they are so synonymous that having two articles seems superfluous. --[[User:Gamling|Gamling]] 23:54, 28 Oct 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
:I agree about merging but I think they should be merged into this article, and not the other way around. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:26, 29 October 2012

The article on "Erech" already covers the Stone of Erech in full detail. The present "Stone of Erech" article is copied directly from the Encyclopedia of Arda, but to replace it would simply be a repeat of the information in the Erech article. I suggest that the "Stone of Erech" be changed into a redirect to "Erech" and the Stone of Erech image be incorporated into that article. This would combine a location (the hill) with an object/monument (the stone) but they are so synonymous that having two articles seems superfluous. --Gamling 23:54, 28 Oct 2012 (UTC)

I agree about merging but I think they should be merged into this article, and not the other way around. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)